The Instigator
RoyLatham
Pro (for)
Winning
21 Points
The Contender
The_Mad_Hatter
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

School uniforms should be required

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 3 votes the winner is...
RoyLatham
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/30/2008 Category: Education
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 9,610 times Debate No: 6375
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (3)

 

RoyLatham

Pro

For this debate a "school uniform" is a specific design for clothing designated to be worn while attending academic classes at a school. The school context comprises grades one through twelve of public and private schools in the United States. Different schools and different grades within schools may have different uniforms, as determined by parents and school administration. The paradigm is that of Japanese schools, as shown in anime (http://answers.yahoo.com...).

The reasons for requiring uniforms are:

1) It promotes identity with the school and class, which emphasizes the common educational purpose. It puts everyone in the same boat so they are more likely to help each other succeed. This is a reason why players on sports teams wear identical uniforms. It would suffice to identify the team players if, say, one team wore predominantly red and the other predominantly blue, or even just predominantly dark and light. Yet there is widespread agreement that having identical uniforms is important for the team psychology.

2) It removes the distractions of fashion trends and fashion competition from school hours, thereby reinforcing the educational purpose of the enterprise. It helps students focus.

3) It teaches boys to be neat and girls to be attractive.

4) It encourages students to evaluate people by their behavior and personality rather than by their manner of dress.

5) It allows individuals to express themselves in fashion outside of school, which reinforces the distinct nature of the educational environment. School uniforms in Japan coexist with cosplay outside of school.

There are many factors that go into overall academic performance, so certainly school uniforms are not the only thing that counts. Nonetheless, the countries that score best on international tests (Hong Kong, Taiwan, Japan) are those that have the tradition of school uniforms. We may therefore reasonably conclude that it makes a positive contribution to having a serious attitude towards education.

Uniforms contribute to the educational process.
The_Mad_Hatter

Con

I would first like to thank my opponent for creating such a unique debate topic from what I've seen on this site. I'm sure this will be a interesting debate for the both of us.

I accept my opponent's definition of "school uniform." However, my opponent has to realize that the government cannot force private schools to wear uniforms if it chooses not to require them if he hasn't realized such a thing.

I also ask that any videos not be looked at until I ask you dear reader.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I shall now jump into my opponent's points and begin to refute:

1.) As a high schooler, I know full well that I would hate certain aspects of my school with or without school uniforms. In fact, being forced to wear school uniforms will make me dislike my school more. My opponent talks about helping each other to succeed, which is fine on a team but school is about individualism. There is rarely team "tests or team essays which are the majority of grades in most classes. Comparing sport teams to school is like apple and oranges. In fact, many students would feel like the school is more of a dictatorship then anything with uniforms.

Again, school uniforms suppresses individualism and discourages teachers to recognise students for their different personalities, character, and abilities. School Uniforms also stop students from taking responsibility for the aspect of dressing themselves for a public environment.

Uniforms fit for Military schools where unity, and discipline are key along with following orders. Not public school where creativity, and being yourself are key elements. Private schools do not matter in this debate as I've shown above.

2.) It surely does not help students focus as they will only find other ways to bully or tease one another. Furthermore, it encourages others to mock those who do not have their uniforms as perfect as perhaps their own little group. Other students will simply bring a outfit from home to change into the minute class ends. I would know as many of my friends (both boys and girls) attend private catholic schools where uniforms are required. (Oh and they hate the uniforms).

3.) School Uniforms alone do not teach boys to be neat and girls to be attractive. Who says the boys and girls must keep their uniforms in fashionable or even clean shape? All school uniforms reenforce is wearing semi-formal outfits in school.

4.) Again, untrue as I've already proven above. My opponent also fails to realize that if this was true then it would only make other students get bullied more often if not more for simply acting differently or having a different personality.

5.) Students will be less likely to want to learn in a strict environment. The Japan cosplay example my opponent gives is a rare one at best and this entire point really is invalid since students can express themselves in fashion outside of school without school uniforms.

This link explores the difference between Japanese and U.S. schools:
http://sitemaker.umich.edu...

Japanese students go to school for 240 days out of the year compared to 180 for American students and Japanese students go in for a half day of instruction on saturday. Japan also uses it's school funding better then America since getting to the students to the school is less of a issue in Japan.

This link explores Taiwan schools:
http://en.wikipedia.org...

From the Link:
"It has been criticised for placing excessive pressure on students and eschewing creativity in favour of rote memorization." There is a difference between teaching and turning students into robots who merely repeat what they been programmed to do.

"Students often stay as late as 8 or 9 PM for "extra classes" which is explored more after the link jump. We have nothing near that for public schools in America.

Kids in Taiwan also stay more days a year in school then U.S. students.

This link explores Hong Kong schools:
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Hong Kong students spend roughly 195 days a year in school, and like the other two countries have a higher amount of work ethic and amount for their schools.

To quote the link:
"The current workload of a primary student in Hong Kong includes approximately 3 to 4 hours of schoolwork nightly."

Does everyone notice a pattern? How school uniforms are barely mentioned if at all in these links? How more school work, days in a school year, and format are the reasons why these schools have the best scores on international tests.

If my opponent truly wants to improve schools, I'd advise making a separate debate about changing the format of public schools. Adding school uniforms will do nothing but create a negative impact as I've shown throughout this debate. So therefore, logic says that CON (me) should win this debate.

Other reasons why school uniforms are a bad idea:

6.) School uniforms would make students very identifiable outside of school and would make the divisions between schools wider. This would only lead to more bullying and fights to develop between students from rival schools as they travel to and from school. If my opponent does not believe such a thing could happen, I ask him and the reader to now look at the first, second, and third video in order in which rival schools fight at basketball and Lacrosse games where each side knows where the other stands obviously. In the first two videos, students and others from each school are fighting while in the third video it is the players from the schools who fight constantly throughout the game.

7.) Uniforms cause major discomfort to the student and therefore distract the student for learning. The uniforms which are particularly bad for girls who have to wear skirts. They have to wear them all year around, this includes in the coldest of winter months. There is also the hottest months of the year that can affect the student having to wear uniforms.

8.) This is related to #7 but a point all on it's own. This serves as a distraction for the teacher to make sure all teachers are enforcing said dress code and therefore takes time out of the class. This is bad both for the teacher who is now behind in teaching the class and the students who will be forced to learn something a little faster at the very least due to what should be a non-relevant issue like clothing except for the fact all students are now required to wear uniforms they don't like or want to wear.

9.) No substantial evidence offered by my own opponent as to why School Uniforms would be superior to regular clothing outside naming three countries that have the highest test scores for reasons I have listed above.

With that, I do believe I have refuted all my opponent's points. I will sum up as to why exactly I have won this debate in the third round. So I would just like to thank my opponent for creating this debate and of course you the reader for taking the time out of your day/evening to read it.

I cannot wait to see my opponent's 2nd round argument so we may continue this debate.

Thank You
Debate Round No. 1
RoyLatham

Pro

Con argues that "the government cannot force private schools to wear uniforms." Actually, the government can pass a law to require it if they chose. However, the operative notion for this debate is "should." the question here is only whether or not it is a good idea. I would leave it up to local school boards to accept the idea. However, if con thinks that implementation is a fundamental barrier, then we can amend the Constitution to allow the mandate.

1) I too would not have liked to have been forced to wear a uniform in high school, and I agree that many students would not like it. However, many students do not like to be forced to attend school at all, or to learn math or science or reading, or to do homework. Nonetheless, all those things are imposed for the sake of education.

Con argues "helping each other to succeed, which is fine on a team but school is about individualism." Among the things that students can do to help each other succeed in education are: provide upper class mentoring of students in lower grades, minimize the social pressure to goof off rather than study, value the debate team along with the basketball team (well, maybe that is a bit much to ask for, but you get the idea), provide peer encouragement to "do your best", and provide a respectful participatory class environment.

Con offers no evidence that discipline is unimportant for general education, or that creativity is suppressed in general by having uniforms. Maturity is often defined as "accepting postponement of the gratification of wants." That means learning to accept discipline and to impose self-discipline. Therefore, these are valid educational goals. Now, I agree the discipline thing can be overdone, but I cannot see any argument that American schools are now over-disciplined. We should move in that direction.

2) Con argues "surely does not help students focus as they will only find other ways to bully or tease one another." Yes, students can find other ways to misbehave, but that doesn't mean uniforms won't help. Having laws against bank robbery does not prevent bank robbery, but the laws help. I have no problem with students changing out of uniforms when they are not in class, in fact I think that helps reinforce the concept that there is a focused "education mode" and a "non-education" mode. Compare it to judges wearing robes. It helps the judge maintain a judicial attitude, and it helps participants afford respect to the judge in his judicial role. If the judge had on a comfy jogging suit and sneakers in the courtroom, we would rightly be concerned that he was not focused on justice. It would be counterproductive if judges wore their robes all the time; similarly, uniforms should be tied to the learning environment.

3) Con argues, "Who says the boys and girls must keep their uniforms in fashionable or even clean shape?" Actually, Con previously argued social pressure would do so, "it encourages others to mock those who do not have their uniforms as perfect as perhaps their own little group..." That would be a significant improvement over competition through expensive fashion fads. The larger point, however, is that the best a school can do is teach; it cannot guarantee that each person will learn. The argument for teaching is that many will learn, even though some do not.

4) I argued, "It encourages students to evaluate people by their behavior and personality rather than by their manner of dress." Con argued again that students may find other ways to misbehave. Again, that is not grounds for failing to do the best job of teaching possible.

5) con gave no reasons of evidence to support his contention that "Students will be less likely to want to learn in a strict environment." He discounted the Japan, Taiwan, and Hong Kong examples to the contrary on the grounds that there were many other differences in the school systems other than uniforms. I granted those many differences at the outset, however, the common theme in all of the differences is that there is more strict environment, not a less strict environment. I have not claimed that uniforms were the only factor or that adopting uniforms would perform miracles. The contention is solely that they move in the direction of having more focused educational environment, and that would improve academic achievement. the notion that students are less likely to want to learn in a focused environment is clear contradicted by the evidence.

6) Con previously argued that students would immediately change out their uniforms the minute school ended. If there is a problem, that's a good solution. Note that there is larger problem with students wearing gang colors or clothing styles that provoke violence. there are cases of students being attacked because they unknowingly wore gang colors. Uniforms solve that problem.

7) There is no reason why uniforms need be uncomfortable. I allowed that parents and administrators should adapt to local circumstances. Fairbanks will be different from Key West.

8) Teachers should do nothing to enforce uniform requirements. That is a job for the school administration. Increased discipline helps teachers. Classes in Japan and elsewhere are much larger than in the US, yet they deliver better education. This is only possible because there are fewer behavior problems.

9) Con asks for additional evidence, while providing no counter-evidence of his own. The largest and most prominent example of a school uniform policy experiment in the United States is that of the Long Beach Unified School District, the third largest school district in California having 97,000 students in 90 public school programs, with 46 different languages spoken by local students:

"The quantitative outcomes of the policy have been remarkable. Crime report summaries are now available for the five-year post-uniform policy period and reflect that school crime overall has dropped approximately 86%, even though K-8 student enrollment increased 14%. The five categories of school crime where comparisons can be made between 1993 levels and 1999 levels are as follows: (a) sex offenses down 93% (from 57 to 4 offenses); (b) robbery/extortion down 85% (from 34 to 5 cases); (c) selling or using chemical substances down 48% (from 71 to 37 cases); (d) weapons or look-a-likes down 75% (from 145 to 36 cases); and (e) dangerous devices down 96% (from 46 to 2 cases; LBUSD, 1999). ... Analysis of attendance figures has also provided interesting outcomes for the uniform initiative. In the fourth year that school uniforms have been required in K-8 grades, the percent of actual attendance reached almost 95%, noted as the highest point in the 18 years that the district has maintained statistics. Middle schools also registered comparable improvements in student attendance reaching almost 95% (LBUSD, 2002)." http://findarticles.com...

The city of Baltimore provides another major experiment with positive results:

"Eddie Scott, principal at Meade Middle on Fort Meade, tells the Baltimore Sun's writer, Anica Butler, "There's research that shows a correlation between appropriate dress and academic performance." Students will not be distracted with who is wearing what brand of jeans, shoes or shirts. Students can focus on learning which is why they are there." http://educationalissues.suite101.com...

In addition to the experience of foreign countries, there are also the evidence of private and and parochial schools that generally require uniforms and achieve better performance.

The policies work most effectively when parents support them, as in Long Beach and Baltimore, and there are examples when other factors overwhelm the effect of having uniforms. Requiring uniforms is a step in the right direction.
The_Mad_Hatter

Con

I would like to thank my opponent once again for this debate and shall begin Round 2.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

My opponent fails to realize that the vast majority of private schools are operated by religious organizations. The government imposing such rules upon these private schools would be breaking the same rule it would to give these schools funding; the establishment clause of the first amendment.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

I also ask the reader to look at how easily my opponent is willing to change the constitution. Hasty decisions like that should not be made, especially with the facts I've presented in this first round along with future rounds.

1.) That's true, many students do not want to go to school at all, or learn certain subjects, or do homework. However, all of those things are imposed because they are proven to help students learn better and become better along with more intelligent members of society. The difference between this and school uniforms is school uniforms are unproven in proving such things.

My opponent named some things that students can do to help each other to succeed in education are nice, but school uniforms are not needed to implement such concepts. It's ironic my opponent brings up the debate team as I am a current member of my own high school's debate team for the last three years. However, my opponent fails to mention that when I talk about school being about individualism that it's IN the classroom. The things my opponent name all occur outside of class or are already class rules such as providing a respectful participatory learning environment for others.

Creativity is certainly suppressed when students are not allowed to dress the way they want within certain school dress codes (that do not include school uniforms). Discipline is more focused on in Military schools, not public school where education and becoming well rounded students through learning are #1. My opponent fails to realize that school uniforms hinder maturity because it doesn't force the student to dress correctly by their own means in a manner that is okay under the guidelines for public schools. Whether or not American Schools are over-disciplined or should be moved in that direction is an entirely different debate in general and school uniforms are unproven in helping in a positive manner.

2.) Again, school uniforms are unproven in helping keep rules in line. School uniforms will not change the differences between who has more money, race, physical looks, religion, political views, and which music is better that most if not all bullying is over. My opponent also fails to state that a courtroom is a formal environment in which people including the judge should be dressed up. Which is the reasons why clients, lawyers and any witnesses should and usually dress in formal attire. Comparing public schools to the courtroom is comparing apple and oranges.

3.) Social pressure would encourage bullying, which my opponent just stated school uniforms would help stop. So which is it my opponent? Once again, students rarely argue and have competitions over expensive fashion fads. The larger point is that if the schools cannot enforce the rules such as keeping a neat school uniform, then why have them?

4.) School Uniforms do not help in doing the best job of teaching or learning possible. Students being bullied due to their personality and actions only hinders that student's learning ability.

5.) I do not need to give reasons to support that because it's simply true. No student wants to be forced into doing something. Which is one of the main reasons that students hate school in the first place because they impose things such as school uniforms onto students that is both unneeded and unnecessary.

My opponent is now arguing over a strict environment in this point, not school uniforms themselves. Schools being stricter or not is once again an entirely different debate. The common theme in those schools are work ethic, working longer days and more days along with better use of funding. As I will later explain, school uniforms are not a good use of funding.

School uniforms also do not impose a focused environment, as shown through the point that it makes students uncomfortable. One cannot focus on their work if they are uncomfortable due to the uniform.

6.) If my opponent has problems with students wearing gang colors or being in a gang, they could simply ship the student out of the school or tell the student to change his/her clothing. Wearing outfits that provoke violence are against most school's set of rules, including my own school. Uniforms do not solve the problem of gangs, race, or other problems that are related to youth and violence. My opponent failed to refute my whole point about how rival schools will find it much easier to fight with being able to identify one another better due to school uniforms.

7.) There is a reason neither my opponent or I have touched upon until now; Cost. Simply put, school uniforms are expensive, cheaply made, and are usually out of place for certain if not all seasons. Poor schools could not afford uniforms if they wanted as they have neither the funds or the parents with such funds. School uniforms would put a burden on the students, the school, and the parents that is unneeded. Especially if the schools require more then one uniform. Spending thousands if not millions of tax dollars on school uniforms would be a huge waste of taxpayers funds. My opponent also has failed to refute that the current uniforms I have as a example are highly uncomfortable and affect the student's learning.

8.) School administration cannot be in every room at everytime. Classes in Japan and elsewhere deliver better education for reasons I listed in round 1.

9.) I decided to wait until you my opponent posted any evidence. My opponent gives the example of the LBU school district. Here is the study published by David L. Brunsma and Kerry A. Rockquemore on School Uniforms and their effects on the things my opponent talks about.
http://www.geocities.com...

As it says at the top: "In one sentence, this study showed that uniforms did NOT lead to an improvement in attendance, behavior, drug use, or academic achievement."

This study in fact refutes my opponent's main evidence of The Long Beach Unified School District study. Along with refutes the myth that School Uniforms have a positive effect on the things my opponent has talked about through this debate. This study alone would be good enough to destroy the core basis of my opponent's argument.

From my opponent's own second link about the school in Baltimore:
"While it is impossible to calculate the direct effect of uniforms."

One other link on a study by Darlene Williams that concerns school uniforms:
http://www.gate.net...

To quote the findings: "All empirical research in existence shows, beyond question that uniforms are ineffective as the magic bullet proponents claim them to be."

My opponent also fails to state that private and parochial give their students more work, have higher funding being a private school along with using funding better, and in the case of private schools in the US have less students to a classroom. These reasons go along with the ones I stated in the first round when it came to schools outside the country such as Japan.

My brother's charter school has at the most 13 students to a classroom, the reason their school scores higher then my public school is because teachers can sit down with students and spend more time helping them with their work rather there being 30 students to a classroom. Not because of school uniforms because neither school has uniforms.

These experiments given by my opponent give school uniforms credit where credit is surely not due as I've proven.
Debate Round No. 2
RoyLatham

Pro

This is a debate about what "should" be done. If one debates the topic "Resolved: People should brush their teeth every morning," that is debating whether it is a good idea or not, not whether it ought to be made a law. What we are debating here is whether school uniforms are a good idea or not.

1) The original contention was that the policy "promotes identity with the school and class, ... so they are more likely to help each other succeed." Con appears to grant that it works for sports teams and the military, but ultimately claimed that education had no aspects other than individual performance. Given a list of team aspects, Con argued " ... when I talk about school being about individualism that it's IN the classroom." This is non-responsive, and it is wrong to suppose that only factors occurring in the classroom affect the quality of education. Uniforms promote unity of purpose, and that affects individual performance. Note that even gang members wear identifiable colors or styles because they are well aware it promotes unity of purpose, even though their purpose is anti-social.

Con introduces a new argument that we should not implement any educational policy that is not proved effective. There is ample evidence the policy is effective, as Con was only able to produce one bogus study to the contrary (discussed below). However, Con's contention, if followed, makes it impossible to ever improve education, because to prove a policy effective it has to be tried, and Con asserts that we should never try anything that hasn't been proved.

Con abandoned arguments that uniforms should not be required because some students wouldn't like them.

2) The second reason reason was that the policy removes a distraction and helps focus. Con argued that other distractions are possible, but made no argument that distractions would not be reduced. Examples of costume helping focus were cited, notably the tradition of judges wearing robes. Con did not rebut any example or the conclusion.

Con argued that both that uniforms would mark students as targets after school, and that students would change out of their uniforms the minute that school ended. Con gave no reason why changing out of uniforms would not solve the problem he supposed, if it ever occurred.

Con argues that having students decide how to dress under guidelines promotes maturity. This supposes that creativity is the major mark of maturity, not self-discipline, a wrong assumption. Con offers no evidence that students avoid immature behavior went given nothing more than guidelines. Clearly, the opposite is true. Boys seek $200 sneakers and girls seek a closet full of fashions. Without a requirement for discipline, students tend to behave with less discipline.

3) The third reason is that "It teaches boys to be neat and girls to be attractive." Con argues that social pressure will make students conform to standards of neatness and attractiveness, but that all social pressure constitutes "bullying." There is no doubt that students will always apply and respond to social pressure, the problem is therefore to attempt to channel social pressure on to desirable paths. It is better to have students pressuring each other to be neat, that to pursuit foolish fads or engage in destructive gang behavior.

4) The fourth reason is that "It encourages students to evaluate people by their behavior and personality rather than by their manner of dress." Con again argues that any form of social pressure constitutes bullying. That is not responsive to the argument that some targets of social pressure are less destructive than others.

5) "It allows individuals to express themselves in fashion outside of school, which reinforces the distinct nature of the educational environment." This is a variant of the "judicial robes" argument, in which a distinct attire enforces behavior suited to the task. Examples were cited of the best schools overseas, in Taiwan, Japan, and Hong Kong, where having uniforms helps maintain a focus on education that leads to better performance. In the US, the Catholic schools, which mostly have uniforms, succeed better than public schools. Con argues that there are many differences besides uniforms that lead to better performance. Its true that there are many differences, but they all relate to discipline and focus. I grant that just having uniforms will not solve all problems. However it is step in the right direction, and we know it is in the right direction because it moves towards the constellation of attributes associated with focus and discipline.

Before-and-after studies in the Long Beach and Baltimore schools show that uniforms achieve positive effects.

Con cites Brunsma and Rockquemore study, which purports to show there is no effect. It is a classic case of a bogus study. Con did not reference the actual study, which is posted at http://sociology.missouri.edu... The key defects are that the study contained almost no public schools, and even more importantly, never considered data from the same school before and after the policies were implemented. They basically end up studying schools that already had high levels of discipline, and conclude that if all else is right, then uniforms make no difference. The authors made statistical corrections for the statistically biased sample, but they give almost no information on what they did in order to get the answer they sought. They admit, for example, that Catholic schools achieve better performance, but they apply corrections to the data so it doesn't correlate to uniforms.

The authors claim to be surprised by their results, but go on to reveal clear bias. For example, they dismiss the solid before-and-after case of the Long Beach School system by saying that a $1 million study ($10/student) introduced unspecified "educational reforms" that produced the dramatic changes. If dramatic improvement could be achieved effortlessly, the "reforms" would surely be adopted universally, which they were not. Beyond that, the authors would surely name the reforms if they were so compelling, but they did not. Moreover, absolutely no one in the school system attributed the improvements to anything but the uniform policy. The authors bias shows throughout their intemperate and unjustified conclusions. A statistics package in the hands of a social scientist remains a dangerous thing. They should wear tuxedos when they sit down at the computer; it would promote discipline.

The authors made one valid point. They suggest that the parental involvement that precipitated a policy of requiring uniforms in Long Beach may have precipitated other improvements. I suggest that parents and educators showing that they cared about educational performance had a positive effect upon performance. That's a good result and a good reason for parents and educators showing they care by adopting a uniforms policy else where.

Late in the debate, Con argued that cost was a reason for not adopting a uniform requirement. In fact, one of the main reasons that Baltimore parents wanted to have school uniforms was to reduce clothing costs. Chasing fashion fads and buying many different stylish outfits is far more expensive than just a few uniforms. However, while costs are lower for middle and upper income families, there is a potential hardship for poor families. It is well worth it for the school system to provide uniforms to such families. The uniforms are guaranteed to be used, so poor kids get better clothing and costs are lowered overall.

Adopting school uniforms will not solve all the problems of education. Before-and-after studies show significant improvements in performance, and virtually all of the top schools systems in the US and abroad have uniform policies as part of an overall program that focuses student
The_Mad_Hatter

Con

Due to personal reasons, I will be having to leave debate.org for the time being.

That being said, I will be unable to complete any sort of argument.

My opponent has made a great argument. I do believe that school uniforms should not be implemented for the reasons I listed above. It's up to you the reader to decide whether you agree with Roy or myself.

However you decide though, I'm sure it will be the best choice.

I apologize to Roy for having to do this.

Thank you
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by awesomeness 2 years ago
awesomeness
nice job roylatham
Posted by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
Before this debate I was somewhat convinced that uniforms were a good idea. After researching and debating the topic, I am now much more convinced that it is a good idea. Most compelling, I think, is the "judicial robes" argument. Also, it seems that virtually every before-and-after study shows a positive result. Nonetheless, I'm sure that when I was back in high school I would have been completely opposed to the idea. I wish that they had made me learn a foreign language too.

A good debate. I think I should have pressed the evidence earlier in the debate. The bogus study is the only link from Wikipedia to a study, so it is an obvious find, but it would have been better to attack it early on.

Mad_Hatter did well with what he had to work with.
Posted by The_Mad_Hatter 5 years ago
The_Mad_Hatter
I apologize for having to do this Roy, I will say you are a great debater though.

I tip my hat off to you.
Posted by The_Mad_Hatter 5 years ago
The_Mad_Hatter
And with that, the empire strikes back. Haha.

I must say, this debate has been quite interesting through two rounds. My best one yet I like to think.
Posted by The_Mad_Hatter 5 years ago
The_Mad_Hatter
It does when both sides are willing to debate it throughly.

I should have my second round argument up fairly soon. I was deciding whether to finish the argument for this debate or the other one first.

Currently in 5 debates. Haha
Posted by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
A good debate! Much better above the average for this site. The topic has a lot more depth than one might suppose.
Posted by The_Mad_Hatter 5 years ago
The_Mad_Hatter
Alas, I have decided to ignore my brain (most likely a horrible choice) and will risk such a edgy topic with a great debater. I know I will say this once I begin the debate but good luck to you Roy.

As a High School Senior, I hope my opinion will be able to help your thinking on this.
Posted by The_Mad_Hatter 5 years ago
The_Mad_Hatter
I really do want to take this, but something in the back of my mind is yelling no. Haha
Posted by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
I'm curious what high school students think about this. I wonder if anime has had any influence.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by vorxxox 5 years ago
vorxxox
RoyLathamThe_Mad_HatterTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
RoyLathamThe_Mad_HatterTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by s0m31john 5 years ago
s0m31john
RoyLathamThe_Mad_HatterTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70