The Instigator
PiercedPanda
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
The_Scapegoat_bleats
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

School uniforms

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/10/2014 Category: Education
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,121 times Debate No: 45588
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (0)

 

PiercedPanda

Pro

The debate will be as the following:

First round, con states points

Second round, pro rebuttals and states points
con rebuttals and states points, makes final arguments

Third round, pro rebuttals and states final arguments
Con must write "no round as agreed upon"

Failure to follow these rules will result in an automatic 7 point lost.

I will be in favour of uniforms being good in school. Con will be against such.
The_Scapegoat_bleats

Con

I want to thank my opponent for the opportunity.
I will present four levels of counter-arguments.

1. economy:
While the clothes industry might profit from sales if every household needed to be outfitted with several sets of uniforms, this is not per se a good thing:
a) Clothing would need to be produced cheaply if school uniforms became standard. So most likely, the uniforms would be produced in third-world countries, employing slave and child labour.
b) Who's going to pay for the uniforms?
The parents? This seems very hard on poor families who are underprivileged already.
The schools? School money comes from parents (see a)) or some public source. Public funds are needed for more important matters than additional clothing for children who have clothes of their own.
The state? See b).
A mixed system where rich parents pay themselves while others get help from public sources? This necessitates a public authority/agency, which will consume even more money for administration.

2. ecology
a) Toxic chemicals are often used in the production of cheap clothing in third-world countries (see 1.a)). They are subsequently dumped in rivers or oceans, poisoning the ecosystem.
b) Additional clothing will need to be laundered. This is a waste of drinking water. Also, detergents are a burden on the environment if not disposed of properly, which will most often not be the case.

3. community
a) While some claim that school uniforms would help fight bullying because poor children will no longer be distinguishable from rich children by their clothing, there will always be bullying. Bullying is a symptom, not the source. f some children want to vent their anger and frustration, they will always find alleged "reasons". If it's not the clothing, it's the haircut or accessories. If we counter-act by giving children identical haircuts and banning accessories, it will be the colour of their hair or skin. Clothes do not generate hatred. Bad education does.
The same goes for gangs, obviously. If gang members can no longer identify each other by wearing certain clothes, they will share the same haircut, like skinheads do anyway.
b) Children in one school may be forged together and bullying may be reduced, for argument's sake. But on their way home, they might meet children from other schools. While previously, two kids meeting on their way home would just be two kids, now they would be pupils of rivaling schools. Bullying might ensue, this time on larger scale, between schools. Incidents of that kind have happened between uniformed athletes from rivaling schools already. Do we want that to expand on all pupils? Imagine the football team of one school encountering the chess club of the other on their respective ways home. The risk of the athletes picking on the weaker children from the other school would be higher than without uniforms.

4. personal growth
a) What would children learn from their uniforms? Nothing but to be superficial and shallow, laying weight on outward appearance. For some reason obscure to them, they would be made wear a uniform to discern them from other pupils from other schools. So they will see differences where there are none (see 3b)). This will not only gain them nothing, as bullying will find other ways of expressing itself, it will also turn their attention towards clothing and probably more superficial details, as now they will be forced to describe others not by their clothes but by irrelevant details when talking with others. The "girl with the bright leggings" will now be "the girl with the freckles and the little wart under her right ear", for lack of other identifying details. So children will be raised to see every imperfection, which will also amplify the process of bullying as described under 3a).
b) Clothing is an expression of your personality. We have the right to express ourselves any way we want. Taking that right away is crippling our civil rights in general, as they are impartial. If a child wants to wear a CareBears T-shirt with My Little Pony skirt, let him or her be happy!
c) Somehow, we all need to learn how to defend ourselves against bullies. Clothing as a target is relatively harmless. I would rather see a coloured child be harassed for their Star Wars sneakers than for their ethnicity. Being bullied for clothing is not nice, but it doesn't hurt as much, and our children have relatively safe ground to learn how to defend themselves without being mentally scarred for life. They'll soon enough tire of their outfits.

So, in conclusion: we gain nothing from school uniforms that wouldn't be outweighed by severely harmful consequences.
Great Britain's elite boarding schools are a living example for snobbism as a result of school uniforms. Children will stand aside in awe when the elite scholars pass. And if they are lucky, they will be ignored rather than bullied.
Debate Round No. 1
PiercedPanda

Pro

I thank con for accepting. I am excited to commence.

Quick notes:

Because con wrote a lot, I will not be quoting his arguments in my rebuttals.
I thank con for displaying his arguments using a text book style. (basically doing things like "1a")
I will simplify my rebuttals. I will rebutting like the following : "a) chickens are good"
Most of my arguments will be repeated from my rebuttals, since they are very similar.

Rebuttals:

1. a) Child labour is not necessarily bad. It is a cheap way for people to produce items. Furthermore, it is a way for poor families to pay off their debt. Further more, children learn lessons such as discipline. Also, if it were to become standard, parents would have to approve of such. And if they do not agree with child labour, they will not allow it, and find safer better ways to produce the uniforms. There are fair-trade clothing stores. [1] Fair-trade is basically fairness and principals in the market. [2] So no slaves are used. School would possibly use these stores in order to have a higher standard and more support in for the school.

b) The average cost for a uniform is 156$ for girls and 140$ for boys. [3] Since you are using this the entire year, you would buy much less clothes. If you were to not have uniforms, you would by many clothes. equalling much higher than this number, making it suitable for all incomes. Also there are sponsor programs to get the uniforms. [4] Also, even without the uniforms, there would still be child labour, so there would be no big difference.

2. a. All clothes would do the same, so it would not matter if it was a school uniform or not.

b. Since you would have less clothes, there would be less clothes to wash. Also there are eco friendly detergents. [5] And as long as you don't get dirty, you can easily wear the uniform again.

3. Boy do I hate how I am mentioning all of my arguments in the rebuttals.

a. Bullying can come from clothing, and even though bullying would not become completely nullified, it will be weakened, which is better than nothing.

b. This is not true. Just because someone wears a uniform doesn't mean they will fight with others. This is a hasty generalization. Furthermore, many parents walk home with their students, so they would stop a fight if one were to occur.

4. a. However this bullying already exist and is already practised. With or without uniforms, it will occur, but with uniforms, you will get rid of bullying through clothing.

b. This is unimportant. There are many ways to show yourself in school, and let's face it, clothing is not often used. You can express yourself through art, and through your work. Also you need not express yourself at school, this can distract other students. Also, you can show yourself outside of school as well.

c. With or without uniforms, people still get bullied for their skin. So it doesn't matter. At least with uniforms, they nullify the bullying through clothing. And also, if you ask me, getting bullied because you have bad clothes because you are pour is worst than getting bullied because you are African.

I would like to point out that my opponent only mentioned small scenarios that practically never happen. He states possible consequences that very few would actually experience. Because of such, the majority of his arguments are useless.

Now finally, for my arguments!

ARGUMENTS:

For this debate, I will be saying 4 main arguments explaining why school uniforms would be beneficial to students, and everyone else.

First of all, less bullying. A lot of children are affected by bullying because of their clothing. Some people cannot afford fancy clothes. Because of this, they get bullied. Though uniforms would not get rid of bullying, it would weaken it, which is better than nothing. This would benefit children with learning, now that they have less issues to think about. This would lead to better education, and better jobs in the future.

Secondly, it would diminish the possibility of inappropriate clothing. Since the children would have to wear uniforms, they would less likely wear inappropriate clothing to school. Inappropriate clothing is in school quite a lot nowadays, with uniforms, you would remove this possibility. [6]

Thirdly, it would be healthier for children. Without having to choose clothing in the morning, children would have more time to sleep. Sleep is probably one of the most important things when it comes to the well-being and learning of students.

Sleep leads to less stress. Without enough sleep, our body goes into "high alert". This increases blood pressure, producing stress. Without sleep, we would be more stressed, which would affect our learning curves. Sleep also makes us more active. Well rested people become more active, aiding them mentally, which will improve their learning. And it improves memory by processing all we have experienced. This strengthens memory, and aids in work. [7]

There even many many more reasons on why sleep is necessary and beneficial to students, and with school uniforms, we can easily accomplish these sleeping goals.

And lastly, it is better for all incomes. With uniforms, children would buy much less clothes. Because of this, all incomes would be able to easily effectively purchase a uniform, and have less financial issues further on in the year.

Back to you con.

sources:
1.http://whereamiwearing.com...
2.http://fairtrade.ca...
3.http://www.classroomuniforms.com...
4.http://www.weirdasianews.com...
5.http://rockingreensoap.com...
6.http://www.ksl.com...
7.http://www.coco-mat.com...
The_Scapegoat_bleats

Con

I thank my opponent for the effort invested in this debate.

Rebuttals:

"Child labour is not necessarily bad."
"The term “child labour” is often defined as work that deprives children of their childhood, their potential and their dignity, and that is harmful to physical and mental development.

It refers to work that:
  • is mentally, physically, socially or morally dangerous and harmful to children; and
  • interferes with their schooling by:
  • depriving them of the opportunity to attend school;
  • obliging them to leave school prematurely; or
  • requiring them to attempt to combine school attendance with excessively long and heavy work."

source: http://www.ilo.org...

Child labour is without doubt and by definition bad.

Fair trade clothing is more expensive than slave-labour-produced clothing, thus putting even more financial strain on poor families. It is unlikely that all schools can be outfitted with fair trade clothing, since the US alone have 50 million children at school age (source: http://www.childstats.gov... ). This cannot be produced by fair trade capacities.


"Since you are using this the entire year, you would buy much less clothes."
"Also, you can show yourself outside of school as well."
This is a clear contradiction. You clearly state that the uniform would be worn at school while other clothes are worn outside of school. Since clothing needs to be washed at LEAST every two days, regardless how long you wear it on a particular day, due to the smell of sweat, the uniforms will in no way reduce the number of clothing pieces the pupils wear. It will just be an additional amount of clothing to be worn in school.
For similar reasons, you need more than one set of uniform. You cannot wear one set of uniform for an entire week without washing. So you need more than one set of uniform, at least doubling the cost you claim. you claim that the clothing need not get dirty, but we are discussing children here. Many will be careless.

"Also there are sponsor programs to get the uniforms."
By the numbers, even if only 10% of all children needed a sponsor, this would mean 5 million children, and by the cost we have established, this would equal 150$ x 2 (two sets) x 5 000 000 = 1.5 BILLION DOLLARS. This money would easily be better invested in books and computers. I also doubt there will be enough sponsors for that demand.

"Also, even without the uniforms, there would still be child labour, so there would be no big difference."
We're talking mass orders of a total of 15 billion dollars' worth of clothing. Of course those will make a difference. In order to fight child labour, we need to stop supporting it. Paying billions of dollars to people who abuse children as work slaves will support them greatly, encouraging them to keep going.

"All clothes would do the same, so it would not matter if it was a school uniform or not."
As established above, school uniforms are ADDITIONAL clothing. So they will also mean an additional poisoning the environment. Clothes in the numbers listed above are only produced on pre-order, so this is additional toxic waste.

"Since you would have less clothes, there would be less clothes to wash."
But there's MORE clothes to wash, as shown above.

"Also there are eco friendly detergents."
That doesn't make them harmless. Even completely bio-degradable detergents cause problems:
http://theconversation.com...

"Bullying can come from clothing, and even though bullying would not become completely nullified, it will be weakened, which is better than nothing."
But by your own account you argued there was no need to go against child labour, if it didn't make much of a difference. You're making up arguments opportunistically, to fit your very need. This is a contradiction.
Also, I highly doubt that bullying would be effected in the least, as bullying because of clothing is just an expression of moral defects in the bullies. What you claim would be the equivalent of saying that giving a man in the rain a torn umbrella was better than nothing - yet he will be completely soaked, as the umbrella doesn't actually help getting the man out of the rain.
Bullying must be counteracted with awareness programs, not by forcing children to wear clothes they did not chose for themselves - which is in itself a kind of suppression. How can suppressing your freedom protect you from your freedom being suppressed by bullies? In the end, bullies who didn't want the school uniforms will pick on the same children AGAIN because they have to wear these uniforms BECAUSE of their complaints about bullying. This will seriously not solve the problem.

"Just because someone wears a uniform doesn't mean they will fight with others."
Read "The Wave", an accurate account of an experiment on fascism conducted in a school some decades ago. Uniforms bring groups closer together and in conflict with other groups. That is why football teams have uniforms and mascots. This is to make them try harder to defeat the "others". Uniforms exist for discernment, or DISCRIMINATION as a synonym. It creates borders, dividing groups and creating group identities set against each other.

"Furthermore, many parents walk home with their students, so they would stop a fight if one were to occur."
This is another contradiction. If parents were able to protect their children, there would be no bullying because of clothing right now, either. Parents cannot achieve this, nor can teachers. Otherwise, the whole point about stopping bullying through uniforms would be moot. The uniforms are supposed to stop or reduce the bullying that is totally out of control right now.

"However this bullying already exist and is already practised. With or without uniforms, it will occur, but with uniforms, you will get rid of bullying through clothing."
Now you admit that bullying will continue "with or without clothing", meaning you admit that the amount of bullying will actually NOT decrease. Thank you for aiding my point.

"This is unimportant. There are many ways to show yourself in school, and let's face it, clothing is not often used."

Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:

"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

You are seriously arguing against the Declaration of Human Rights?

"With or without uniforms, people still get bullied for their skin. So it doesn't matter."
Exactly. So uniforms are useless and cost way too much.

"And also, if you ask me, getting bullied because you have bad clothes because you are pour is worst than getting bullied because you are African."
That is a hypothesis I would like you see defend. you are actually claiming that RACISM is less bad than being bullied for clothes you can change? Surely, it is worth to be discriminated by something you are not accountable for, because that is unjust and you cannot do anything to avoid it, making you completely helpless.

"I would like to point out that my opponent only mentioned small scenarios that practically never happen."
Numbers mean nothing. Regardless how often something wrong happens, it is still wrong. Confusing quality and quantity is a critical mistake. Even if only one child has to suffer, will YOU take responsibility for it with YOUR decision to support school uniforms? So far, these situations don't happen a lot, because we don't HAVE school uniforms in most parts. Who are you to foretell the future? I state that I'm WORRIED about harmful consequences, while you just brush them away. That is not the intent of a debate.

"inappropriate clothing".
This is a circular argument. You DEFINE school uniforms as "appropriate" and other clothing as "inappropriate". Then you go on to explain that appropriate clothing is better, hence uniforms are better. Most schools have regulations against "revealing" clothing, and children break these rules. What makes you believe that a rule to wear school uniforms would fare any better?

"sleep".
How about parents - you gave responsibility to them with your "walking home" argument above - simply teach their children not to be so picky about their clothes? Ultimately, your "argument" is a disguised repetition of your - self-admittedly weak - bullying argument. Children need to pick clothes carefully because of the fear of bullying. It wouldn't be long before bullying took another form, for instance freckles or spots. Then the same amount of time would be needed to cover those up before class, resulting in the same problem of sleep-deprivation. Bullying exists and is undesirable, so pupils subjected to it will always try to find ways to counteract it. These protective measures will always consume time. So if bullying is not ended, there will not be additional time for sleep.
Here's a simple solution to the sleep problem, though: pick clothes the evening before, have them ready when you wake up. No hasty decisions needed in the morning while you are not yet fully functional due to sleep-deprivation.

Since this is my final go, I would like to thank my opponent for this short bout.

I will summarize:
My opponent suggests supporting child labour, has no regard for the Human Right to Self-Expression and considers racism to be less of a problem than clothing issues - all in order to defend the obligatory introduction of school uniforms.
I think I have made it fairly clear that on these grounds, no solid argument in favour of school uniforms can be upheld. These points of view may not be the price we pay just because we can't get bullying under control. These are three of the most basic rights for humans ever established, and we may not give those up because of the failure of our school system to educate children on why bullying is bad.

Thank you for reading this.
Debate Round No. 2
PiercedPanda

Pro

REBUTTALS:

" It is unlikely that all schools can be outfitted with fair trade clothing, since the US alone have 50 million children at school age . "

The debate is weather school uniforms are beneficial or not to children in school. I am not saying that all schools should have them, so this argument is invalid. I am arguing how uniforms can be good, not how every school should have them.

"You clearly state that the uniform would be worn at school while other clothes are worn outside of school. Since clothing needs to be washed at LEAST every two days, regardless how long you wear it on a particular day, due to the smell of sweat, the uniforms will in no way reduce the number of clothing pieces the pupils wear."

But children would buy less clothes, they will still have clothes but less. This will be due to the fact they no longer have to wear a different pair of clothes each day.

"For similar reasons, you need more than one set of uniform. You cannot wear one set of uniform for an entire week without washing. So you need more than one set of uniform, at least doubling the cost you claim. you claim that the clothing need not get dirty, but we are discussing children here. Many will be careless."

First of all, you need to put a capital letter at the beginning of a sentence.
If they are careless they won't wash it. And even if they do, this will be good for them. It will teach them responsibility, and if they don't want to use a washer, they can hand wash it themselves. This will give them more work, which teaches them many lessons.

"By the numbers, even if only 10% of all children needed a sponsor, this would mean 5 million children, and by the cost we have established, this would equal 150$ x 2 (two sets) x 5 000 000 = 1.5 BILLION DOLLARS. This money would easily be better invested in books and computers. I also doubt there will be enough sponsors for that demand."

Even if there weren't, they would at least help a family a bit. This would at least help them get the uniforms for less.

"As established above, school uniforms are ADDITIONAL clothing. So they will also mean an additional poisoning the environment. Clothes in the numbers listed above are only produced on pre-order, so this is additional toxic waste."

As mentioned above, this is not a debate saying all schools should have uniforms, it is a debate to explain why it would be beneficial. Also, if people bought less clothes, uniforms would take over of the carbon foot print created by normal clothes, which wouldn't add too much. And other things would add on either way.

"But there's MORE clothes to wash, as shown above."

It would be less, since you would buy less clothes, as I have been mentioning this entire debate.

"That doesn't make them harmless. Even completely bio-degradable detergents cause problems"

With no uniforms, children would have more clothes to wash, making them use these detergents even more.

"But by your own account you argued there was no need to go against child labour, if it didn't make much of a difference. You're making up arguments opportunistically, to fit your very need. This is a contradiction.
Also, I highly doubt that bullying would be effected in the least, as bullying because of clothing is just an expression of moral defects in the bullies. What you claim would be the equivalent of saying that giving a man in the rain a torn umbrella was better than nothing - yet he will be completely soaked, as the umbrella doesn't actually help getting the man out of the rain.

Bullying must be counteracted with awareness programs, not by forcing children to wear clothes they did not chose for themselves - which is in itself a kind of suppression. How can suppressing your freedom protect you from your freedom being suppressed by bullies? In the end, bullies who didn't want the school uniforms will pick on the same children AGAIN because they have to wear these uniforms BECAUSE of their complaints about bullying. This will seriously not solve the problem."

Uniforms only make you follow the rules in school. It teaches discipline, and only removes the freedom of clothing. This isn't even a freedom! Clothes are things you wear, and nothing more, so people shouldn't complain about not being able to wear something, if they all do the same thing. Your 2nd last sentence made no sense. Children would not end up wearing uniforms because someone complained about bullying! I am just saying that it would weaken bullying, and you have no effective way to counteract this.

"Read "The Wave", an accurate account of an experiment on fascism conducted in a school some decades ago. Uniforms bring groups closer together and in conflict with other groups. That is why football teams have uniforms and mascots. This is to make them try harder to defeat the "others". Uniforms exist for discernment, or DISCRIMINATION as a synonym. It creates borders, dividing groups and creating group identities set against each other."

It does not create borders, it is but a way to keep a school in discipline. And as you said they bring people together. It is better to have 1 friend and various enemies than to have no friends at all.

"If parents were able to protect their children, there would be no bullying because of clothing right now, either. Parents cannot achieve this, nor can teachers."

Parents don't always protect, but uniforms give them a smaller worry to have to. I have said this the entire debate. And you are unable to counteract it.

"This is a circular argument. You DEFINE school uniforms as "appropriate" and other clothing as "inappropriate". Then you go on to explain that appropriate clothing is better, hence uniforms are better. Most schools have regulations against "revealing" clothing, and children break these rules. What makes you believe that a rule to wear school uniforms would fare any better? "

Not wearing uniforms have a greater consequence. So since they would wear their uniforms, they would be too worried to dress inappropriately.

"How about parents - you gave responsibility to them with your "walking home" argument above - simply teach their children not to be so picky about their clothes? Ultimately, your "argument" is a disguised repetition of your - self-admittedly weak - bullying argument. Children need to pick clothes carefully because of the fear of bullying. It wouldn't be long before bullying took another form, for instance freckles or spots. Then the same amount of time would be needed to cover those up before class, resulting in the same problem of sleep-deprivation. Bullying exists and is undesirable, so pupils subjected to it will always try to find ways to counteract it. These protective measures will always consume time. So if bullying is not ended, there will not be additional time for sleep.
Here's a simple solution to the sleep problem, though: pick clothes the evening before, have them ready when you wake up. No hasty decisions needed in the morning while you are not yet fully functional due to sleep-deprivation."

Some people have a lot to do the evening before, which doesn't give them time to. So in the morning they do. With uniforms you wouldn't have this problem of having to choose.

Summarize:

Uniforms would be beneficial for students and their learning patterns. This would be also help them with responsibility. Furthermore, it would weaken bullying. Children would have less clothes, saving them money, and all parents would be able to afford them.

My opponent was unable to effectively render any of my arguments invalid. Furthermore, he tries to always bring everything back to the "bullying" aspect, and while he does so, he completely ignores the argument he is supposed to be rebutting. Also, he put a lower case letter various times at the beginning of his sentences. Because of such, I urge you to vote for pro.

VOTE PRO.
The_Scapegoat_bleats

Con

no round as agreed upon
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by The_Scapegoat_bleats 2 years ago
The_Scapegoat_bleats
Oh, and: "you need to put a capital letter at the beginning of a sentence."
Posted by The_Scapegoat_bleats 2 years ago
The_Scapegoat_bleats
Don't play innocent on me.
If you want, I can challenge you to adebate and present my proof.
Posted by PiercedPanda 2 years ago
PiercedPanda
what?
Posted by The_Scapegoat_bleats 2 years ago
The_Scapegoat_bleats
Pierced*
Sorry.
Posted by The_Scapegoat_bleats 2 years ago
The_Scapegoat_bleats
Oh, I should have guessed you're a cheater. PircedPanda=urupai.
I checked your votes/"wins". You lousy cheater, shame on you!
Posted by The_Scapegoat_bleats 2 years ago
The_Scapegoat_bleats
You're welcome. Take your time, this is good practice. Great job so far!
Posted by PiercedPanda 2 years ago
PiercedPanda
Oh boy am I excited for this debate, but not ready quite yet. I am working on seeing all of your flaws, and thinking about how much space I have to rebuttal all of them. I have never had an opponent who is very good on this subject. I thank you very much for accepting this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.