Schoolchildren should have a uniform dress code
Debate Rounds (4)
Round 1 - Acceptance
Round 2 - Opening Arguments
Round 3 - Responses to Opening Arguments
Round 4 - Defense of Opening Arguments and Conclusion.
Please do not accept the debate if you are likely to forfeit any round at all. I look forward to the debate.
Thank you for accepting, Con. I look forward to a robust debate. I will structure my argument thus: why schoolchildren should have a uniform dress code, followed by the demerits of a non-uniform dress code.
I shall now move on to disadvantages of having a free or non-uniform dress code.
I conclude with my position that a uniform dress code is the best approach for a school to take, and that a free or non-uniform dress code carries with it several undesirable side-effects, of which it is in the best interests of any school not to deal with. I look forward to seeing Con's counter-arguments.
I"m going to go ahead and structure my argument for this round the same way for simplicity"s sake.
The purpose of schools is not only to educate our children but also to teach them to think for themselves so the children may thrive and bring about changes to our society in the future. I believe we would all agree that the world would not be moving forward if everyone"s thinking the same way. The first step to promoting individualized thinking would be promoting individuality. To promote individuality among children it is best if they are allowed to express themselves through their actions, such as a free dress code policy.
A school with no dress code will have an easier time raising creative kids. Just the simple task of showing up at school requires the thought of "How should I dress today?". It is already an indirect homework assignment "assigned" by the school to have the children think every day. Not only is this assignment never ending but it is a creative thinking training. The creative thinking method Brainstorming is the process in which people start with an idea and think of as many possibilities as possible and try to find solutions among those possibilities. A free dress code policy is like brainstorming, the children can think of endless possibilities to dress themselves with and be as creative as possible. If children cannot even have the freedom to dress themselves how can you expect them to be creative in the future? Start young!
A free dress code is the best way to exercise the first amendment to its fullest. Now, whether you"re from the United States or not, the freedom of speech and religion is a basic right of U.S. citizens. With the schools becoming more and more diversified every day, it"s an interesting way to see whether the U.S. is really abiding by its ideals. The freedom to dress and represent your culture, heritage, and religion should not be hindered by any person or any rules. As we can see with the protest in Hong Kong that is happening as we speak, the freedom to choose and not be oppressed is the basis of a successful country.
For the children to learn well in school, comfort is an important factor. In a study done by Holliday & Said, it has been shown that learning associated with comfort will greatly enhance the learning experience. It will reduce nervousness and reduce pulse and therefore allows more attention to be placed into learning. Just as when a performer gets stage fright, there is just no way for him/her to perform well.
Moving on to the disadvantages of a dress code policy"
The education system we have today is like having a tree and telling different types of animal (student) to climb that tree (fishes, monkey, dog, etc.) You can"t expect everyone to do well on the same system, for everyone is unique in his/her own way. A dress code is a further extension of that system. Not only are you using the same education system for all the kids you are also extending that system on to the students in the form of cloth. I think it"s safe to say in order to better the education system we need to start with understanding the students' needs instead of applying the old methods. That change should start with the dress code.
Dress codes often do require parents to buy the standard outfit for their children in order to attend school, but education should be cheap, if not free. It has been noted that some parents do face financial issues and cannot hope to get new clothes for their children. It will greatly reduce the financial burden on the parents to have a free dress code policy, especially for parents who have more than one child. According to the United States Census Bureau, in 2013 there are 45.3 million people in poverty and that number has not gone down for three consecutive years. To top it off, the 2013 poverty rate was 2.0% higher than in 2007. Schools should not only be looking out for the well-being of the environment of the children but also take into consideration of the families of the children.
Certain school uniforms will embed gender stereotypes. Of course not all school uniforms do this but as with there are different schools started with different beliefs, as will the uniforms. As most of us will remember, the typical school uniform for little boys will consist of upper body clothing and lower body clothing, which will be pants. But for little girls that lower body piece is usually skirts. This reinforces the gender stereotypes that so many people are working so hard to remove today. One may argue that all the uniforms can be changed to all pants, but looking at it from another prospective, why not all skirts? Why can"t boys wear skirts but girls can wear pants? To effectively make changes and attain equality between the two genders the freedom of expression is not to be restricted.
To wrap up the argument, a dress code policy might create a short term success for the school but not for society"s growth as a whole. Looking at the bigger picture and aiding the growth of children in a restriction free way will contribute to a more competitive country with much more possibilities.
-Holliday, T., & Said, S. (2008). Psycho physiological Measures of Learning Comfort: Study Groups" Learning Styles and Pulse Changes. TLAR, 13(1), 7-16.
-DeNavas-Walt, C., & Proctor, B. D. (2014, September). Income and Poverty in the United States: 2013. United States Census Bureau, 0, 60-249.
Paragraphs 1 and 2: Creativity
I agree with Con, that creativity is an important trait to inculcate in children. It does not follow logically, however, that wearing the same uniform makes everyone think the same way. That would suggest that individuality in thought is devoid in many of the professions that populate our world today. If Con had opened the link to my first source, however, you would observe that Katherine Smith, an ex-teacher and the former President of the Group Resolving Anti-Social Problems has opined that the benefits of inculcating creativity through clothing is overshadowed by its disadvantages. She says instead that "individual self-expression can be exercised in school through art, creative writing, music, etc. Self-expression in clothes is appropriate after school, on weekends and vacation." I am sure that Con would not disagree with me when I affirm that art, creative writing and music are examples of more productive avenues for children to realise and express their creative side.
In paragraph 2, Con mentions that not allowing children to dress themselves limits their creative potential. I would like to remind Con that their dressing is limited only in school. They are free, as mentioned in the source quoted above, to dress as they please after school, on weekends and on vacation. The positive effects of a free dress code that Con mentions, is thereby not limited by a uniform dress code in school.
Paragraph 3 - First Amendment
I am rather confused by Con's argument. Con acknowledges that the First Amendment outlines that freedom of speech and religion as a universal right of U.S. citizens, but applies it universally nonetheless. I am also in the dark as to what a uniform dress code has to do with either freedom of speech or religion. Uniforms do not curtain a student's ability to speak on issues that matter to him/her, or his/her ability to profess and practice any religion.
Con says that the freedom to "dress and represent your culture, heritage, and religion should not be hindered by any person or any rules". I would like to mention that students seldom come to school in a dress that "expresses their culture, heritage and religion". It would be very odd to see a Indian schoolchild attend an American school class in a sari, a Korean schoolchild attend class in a hanbok, or a Jordanian, in a kaffiyeh. Instead, they would wear clothes that best allows them to assimilate into the environment in the school. This often manifests in chasing after "status clothing", which is not expressive of culture, heritage or religion, and has several negative side effects, as mentioned also in opening arguments. To allow students to express their culture, heritage and religion, it is not necessary to have a free dress code. Indeed, countries such as Singapore have "International Friendship Day", and "Racial Harmony Day", in which students dress up in clothes that represent their cultures, or those of their friends.
Paragraph 4: Comfort
I agree completely that a student's comfort is essential to a conducive learning environment. I am not convinced, however, that a free dress code can achieve this. As I have mentioned in my initial arguments, a uniform dress code blurs barriers of social and wealth class, acts to bring about unity in team spirit, and erases worry about being judged based on attire. It seems to me that a uniform dress code is far more effective at bringing about comfort for every student than a free dress code is.
Another issue here is that a free dress code encourages an unhealthy and unproductive competition in terms of appearance. This is bad especially because it distracts from the objective of learning in school.
Paragraph 5: Factory-like education system
I am rather confused as to how a uniform dress code limits a student's ability to pursue their own passions and contribute to society in their own way. I am also rather befuddled as to how allowing a student to dress as he/she pleases can improve the school's ability to cater to their "needs". What kind of "needs" can be addressed by students wearing what they like?
It appears as though Con is suggesting also that since the system is archaic, therefore it should go. This is a logical fallacy, because the age of a system or policy has very little to do with its effectiveness. If Con has an argument as to why it does not apply in this day and age, I would be delighted to hear it.
Paragraph 6: Financial difficulties
Con makes a good point that many families may not be able to afford school uniforms. I have two responses to this. Firstly, the solution to financial difficulty is not to get rid of the system. Such families have equal difficulty with purchasing books stationery. We do not solve these by asking them not to buy books and stationery. Instead, schools usually have funds for financially struggling families, which allow them to give their children a decent education at subsidised rates.
My second response is that it is exactly these families who will benefit most from having a school uniform. There is a significant potential for their children to be judged (potentially either consciously by students or subconsciously by teachers) based on their social class or wealth (or lack thereof), and this will manifest very obviously in the clothes that they wear. If we are indeed committed to ensuring equal opportunity for all, a uniform dress code offers the best way of achieving this.
If there is a concern with the specific uniform worn in a certain school, it would be a good exercise to address the gender stereotypes it propagates in its specific context. Eradicating a uniform dress code instead, is a means of running away from the problems of gender stereotyping in our world and pretending that they don't exist. Even if children grow up with little conception of gender stereotypes in school (which is unlikely, with or without uniform dress codes), they will definitely be exposed to the same when they grow up. It is the duty of authority figures in their lives to ensure that they are prepared for this occurrence, and will not get a rude shock when it happens.
I maintain that a uniform dress code policy is the best policy, both in a short-run and a long-run situation.
I thank Con for his arguments and await his rebuttal of my points.
In response to round 2's argument:
The fear of being judged based on how one is dressed is a form of social weakness and the fear is a result of that trait. By implementing a dress code policy to take away that fear it result in students turning their attention to attacking the social weakness of the victim from another prospective. This can be observed in Japanese schools, where the tradition of a dress code policy in schools is well known but the bullying and suicide rates are extremely high. In a blog addressed to bullying in Japan, it obtained statistics from the Ministry of Education in Japan on bullying to emphasize the scale of the problem. In the statistics it showed every 5 out of 1000 students are bullied, ranging from elementary to high schools .
The blurring of social or cultural barriers is what the schools should be trying to prevent. This is also a short clarification on my First Amendment argument. Religious clothing is a huge part of life for many cultures. Just recently, Qatar women"s basketball team forfeited their match due to a hijab ban, their religious clothing. The team was willing to give up their match for something they believed in . The freedom of speech and religion may seem like a simple phrase but there is a reason why it is perhaps the most important amendment in the Constitution. By implemented a dress code policy, this right is then in violation. Because a religion is to some people a way of life. The intention blurring of these cultural barriers will infringe the child's religious rights heavily.
The displaying of social status or economic class cannot be easily blurred by a dress code. The amount of money spent at an event, the types of accessories worn, and the cars the child's parents drive are all simple indications of financial well being. The barriers separating people is indeed psychological, for it is not the money that separates the people, it is the people that choose to separate people based on their differences. The removal of the physical materials will not make a difference.
A unifying element between students would not be necessary as the students did not all attend school to try and achieve the same goal. School is only a stepping stone to a career and the students will not all be having the same career in the future. The reason why the military has a uniform that is to induce unity and ranks for the sake of accomplishing the mission . But students do not need that. If anything, a unifying element is unnecessary.
Teachers picking favorites, now this is an interesting one. In a study done by Princeton University by Willis & Todorv has shown that the majority of the impressions that you give to people are from your face and not from the way you dress . Teachers will not subconsciously be drawn to picking a favorite because of the way they dress. It is simply not true.
High skilled professional wear uniforms out of the demands of their job. On the contrary it is mostly the low skill jobs that require the wearing of a uniform. Why a dress code for any job? It may be safety issues or just for the sake of appearance for the customers. Surgeons are definitely high skill jobs but their dress code for surgery serves to prevent the after effects of seeing certain powerful contrasting colors. Why do lawyers, bank employees, and government officials wear suits? It is to appeal to their target audiences. Their jobs depend on their clients. Their job depends on their interaction with people. As for technical professions as you mentioned less of this is seen because they do not need to interact with people as much as these previously mentioned professions are required to. This is why in the high tech field many "work from home" options are available.
Police and firefighter have uniforms I don"t feel like I need to explain this in an argument for it should be self explanatory but since it"s brought up...
Police wear uniforms to identify themselves for who they are, which is quite necessary. A person cannot just walk to you and claim to be the police and arrest you. They have to have some sort of identification to claim to be working for the police. You can find more on why police wear uniforms here:
There are psychological aspects to their uniforms as well, much like the uniforms of the soldiers.
For the firefighters it is the same as the surgeons. Necessity. Their suits are fireproof. Enough said.
Uniforms do not prepare the students for the harsh realities of the world. A dress code does not educate the students as to why these professions require a uniform. Everything is done for a reason. If the reason is to prepare the students for the possible upcoming career in which they might have to wear a uniform in that"s not sufficient enough of a reason to have a school uniform.
1.Ministry of Education. (n.d.). Instruction of Problematic Students Survey. Retrieved September 30, 2014, from http://www.mext.go.jp...
2.Japan Looks to Address Bullying, Suicides at Schools. (n.d.). Japan Real Time RSS. Retrieved September 30, 2014, from http://blogs.wsj.com...
3.Qatari women basketballers forfeit over hijab ban. (n.d.). ABC News. Retrieved September 30, 2014, from http://www.abc.net.au...
4.Pfanner, T. (n.d.). Military uniforms and the law of war. www.icrc.org. Retrieved September 30, 2014, from https://www.icrc.org...
5.Willis, J., & Todorov, A. (2006). First Impressions: Making Up Your Mind After A 100-Ms Exposure To A Face. Psychological Science, 17(7), 592-598.
Your response to Paragraph 1:
Con"s reasoning is rather sketchy and so I apologise in advance if I misrepresent his argument. It appears as though he insinuates that a uniform dress code builds social weakness, and that this social weakness turns a student into a target for bullies, thereby making it an undesirable policy. If this is Con"s argument, he falls victim of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, or the fallacy of causation. Bullies in Japan are not specifically attracted by their victims" "social weakness". Instead, "among children, it is clear that the incidence of bullying behaviour is higher among those who experience frustration as a result of stresses at school or in the home." What is more, the profile of Japanese schoolyard bullies includes "popular, intelligent children with good social skills". Clearly, bullying in Japan has very little to do with a uniform dress code. There are social factors as well, stemming from a "survival of the fittest" culture in Japan.
I would like to inform Con: "children raised in an environment where the haves flourish at the expense of the have-nots are more likely to engage in systematic persecution of the weak". The social culture in Japan promotes this, and it is exactly these boundaries that a uniform dress code attempts to blur. Imagine how much worse the problem would be if the wealth status of children was plain as daylight, seen in the kind of clothes they wear.
If Con looks closely at the article involving Qatar, he will notice that the Qatari players are in uniform. The Qatari women are wearing headgear and clothing of the exact same colour and pattern. Clearly, the issue was not to do with Islamic headgear. In fact, in most countries with a specific uniform code, concessions are made for groups with certain religious beliefs. I shall give another example of Singapore, as it is a multiracial country. In Singapore, both in schools and professionally, Muslims are allowed to wear headscarves (known there as tudungs) and Sikhs are permitted to wear turbans. One might observe the same in India, which has a large Muslim and Sikh population as well. A uniform dress code does not impinge on any of the fundamental liberties that Con asserts it does, because such liberties are understood, and concessions are made accordingly. The solution is not to do away with a uniform entirely.
1."Anatomy of Japanese Bullying." Nippon.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Sept. 2014. <http://www.nippon.com...;.
2.Child Research Net http://www.childresearch.net...
3.Morita Yohji, Ijime no kokusai hikaku kenky$3;"Nihon, Igirisu, Oranda, Noruwē no ch!3;sa bunseki (International Comparison of Bullying"Analysis of a Survey of Japan, Britain, the Netherlands, and Norway), Kaneko Shob!3;, 2001
4.Watts, M. (1998), Cross-Cultural Perspective on Youth and Violence, JAI Press
1.National Institute for Educational Policy Research "Ijime tsuiseki ch!3;sa 2007-2009" (Pursuit Surveys on Bullying 2007~2009)
Your response to paragraph 2:
Even if team spirit in a school is "unnecessary", as you put it, it cannot be undesirable. The internet is replete with studies that show that school spirit is a positive reinforcement for the school"s objectives. I shall quote one, "It seems clear that school spirit is a very important dimension of what makes a school a place where students can achieve to their academic potential and develop as well rounded human beings able to operate in and contribute to our society." Dr. Cowan goes on to recommend "that schools develop a mechanism to review school spirit on a regular basis so that the part it plays in achieving the school"s mission can be used to best effect." Clearly a mechanism such as a uniform that unites the school is a positive outcome.
1.Cowan, Linda. "Does positive school spirit allow students to engage more positively in learning and achieve greater success?." A Research Investigation Undertaken As Part of Principals" Sabbatical Leave - (2005): n. pag. Educational Leaders. Web. 30 Sept. 2014.
Response to paragraph 3:
To begin with, I have a source in my opening arguments that substantiates my claim that clothing affects first impressions, in specific context of school attire. The source that Con has quoted is vague and not tailored for a school related discussion. Nonetheless, I shall copy the original source again and accommodate Con. I quote the Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, Professor Karen Pine of the University of Herfordshire, as well as the American Psychological Association, in saying that dressing style makes a big difference in first impressions. My original argument stands firm.
1.Holloman, Lillian. "VIA Holloman." VIA Holloman. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Sept. 2014. http://www.via.vt.edu...
2.Howlett, Neil, Karen Pine, Ismail Orak"ioglu, and Ben Fletcher. "The influence of clothing on first impressions: Rapid and positive responses to minor changes in male attire." Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management 17.1 (2013): 38-48. Print.
3.Pine, Karen. "The Effect of Appearance on First Impressions." - - (0): n. pag. http://karenpine.com.... Web. 30 Sept. 2014.
4.Rowh, Mike. "First impressions count." gradPSYCH Magazine 1 Nov. 2012: 32. Print.
Response to paragraph 4:
I have no idea why Con has listed all the possible reasons for professionals wearing uniforms. It simply reinforces my argument that uniforms are a reality of the world we live in, and the sooner students adapt to that, the better.
I have not, at any point, suggested that uniforms prepare students for the "harsh" realities of the world, nor do I suggest that wearing a uniform can prepare students for the job-scope of someone who wears a uniform. Instead (and I apologise for not being clearer), a strict dress code emphasises the importance of being neat and kempt, rather than being flashy and innovative. In many situations in this "harsh" world, adults are forced into certain dress codes. Be it for an interview, a meeting, etc. At such occasions, a major differentiating factor (which is substantiated in sources quoted above), can be how neat one looks, how well the clothes fit them, whether their clothes are ironed properly. These distinctions are best drawn with a uniform dress code, because it enables the minute differences between the clothes everyone wears to be highlighted.
With all the above, I reinforce my original points and thank my opponent for a robust and spirited debate. As I am confident that I have proven, a uniform dress code is far more beneficial to students than a free dress code.
In response to the financial issue:
Books and stationeries are necessities to progress in school while uniforms are not. Even if the school can provide financial aid to the family why waste financial resources on items the student don"t necessarily need to learn in school?
"If there is a concern with the specific uniform worn in a certain school, it would be a good exercise to address the gender stereotypes it propagates in its specific context. Eradicating a uniform dress code instead, is a means of running away from the problems of gender stereotyping in our world and pretending that they don't exist. "
There"s a fine line between trying to solve the problem and pretending it does not exist. A free dress code policy is to ensure students know that they hold the freedom to negate gender stereotyping by being able to dress however they want.
"Even if children grow up with little conception of gender stereotypes in school (which is unlikely, with or without uniform dress codes), they will definitely be exposed to the same when they grow up. It is the duty of authority figures in their lives to ensure that they are prepared for this occurrence, and will not get a rude shock when it happens."
I"m sorry to be rude but that is just ignorance. Even if the students will be exposed to gender stereotyping in the future it does not justify the fact that they should conform to it while in school. The authorities serve to help prevent the occurrence but it"s up to education to properly guide the students on to the right path and prevent gender stereotyping while they are still in school.
Factory-like education system
I"m suggesting a uniform dress code is an extension of the already one-size-fit-all education system. It is adding on to the effect of the current education system. As for the reason why the old education system might not work in this day and age, I think that"s a debate for another time.
The response to my round 3 argument was indeed misrepresented.
What I meant was the fear of being judged based on how a person is dressed is a not a factor that can be resolved by implementing a dress code. Because it is more than what it seems. The fear is a manifestation of social weakness. I apologize if I cannot make myself clearer. The bullying examples were to reinforce the argument that the dress code is implemented to attempt to remedy that fear of judgment by others but the bullies will simply find other ways of bullying the victim. Because the dress code is not targeted at the root of the problem to which Pro has claimed to have resolved with the implementation of a dress code in round 1:
"A uniform dress code allows a student to fit in without fear of judgment reflected in the way they dress."
And yes, "the profile of Japanese schoolyard bullies includes 'popular, intelligent children with good social skills'." That is what would be referred to as the lack of social weakness. The profiles of the bullies are consisted of people who are much capable socially, that is the reason these "social bullies" succeed at bullying those with social weaknesses. They utilize social interactions as the tool for bullying.
"1."Anatomy of Japanese Bullying." Nippon.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Sept. 2014. <http://www.nippon.com...;
"Clearly, bullying in Japan has very little to do with a uniform dress code. There are social factors as well, stemming from a "survival of the fittest" culture in Japan."
The above source stated by Pro and also the statement from Pro suggests no correlation between the reducement of the fear of judgment from other students and a dress code policy as stated below by Pro in round 2.
"This allows children to focus on the learning (that schools purpose to impart) that takes place without fear of judgment from other students, especially in tender, impressionable ages, and teenage years, when social status is of particular consequence to students."
In response to my rebuttal of the round 2 argument"
I was in no way suggesting the problem was not blurred by the dress code. I was suggesting the prejudice created by the difference in wealth is too powerful of an element to be blurred completely by a dress code. A dress code covers only an insignificant amount of that element. What is blurred by the dress code is hardly a solution to the overall problem.
The rebuttal by Pro regarding the Qatar women"s basketball team"
I think the point of the argument was missed completely. The team chose to forfeit the match because the hijab was not allowed on the basketball court due to clashes between religion and safety. In Singapore religious head pieces are allowed but so are they in the U.S. and the argument was the implementation of a dress code will be infringing the right of the students. Also the argument for Pro I had a hard time understanding why the examples of Singapore and India was brought up when there was no mentioning of a uniform dress code for Singapore and India.
In response to the rebuttal of paragraph 3:
Studies done on first impressions on human beings I"m sure it"s hard to disagree that it does not apply to a school setting, for students are humans as well. As for the vagueness of the argument, I simplified it for the sake of the readers. I shall quote from the study:
"Correlation of Time-Constrained With Time-Unconstrained Judgments
As shown in Table 1, even after 100-ms exposure to a face, trait judgments were highly correlated with judgments made in the absence of time constraints. Although the correlations for all judgments but attractiveness increased with the increase in exposure from 100 to 1,000 ms, none of these changes was significant. We compared the correlations at 100 and 500 ms, at 500 and 1,000 ms, and at 100 and 1,000 ms using Williams" test for dependent correlations (Steiger, 1980). None of these tests reached significance. We expected that we would find the highest correlation for judgments of attractiveness. Attractiveness, after all, is a property of facial appearance."
For further information please refer to my source.
Also to note the journal written by Assistant Professor Lillian O. Holloman was done in 1995 aimed at remedying violence and crime related issue in schools through uniform clothing. However, I will quote from the source Pro has listed from Assistant Professor Lillian O. Holloman:
"Despite the advantages, wearing uniforms is not a panacea for school problems. Furthermore, opponents view such policies as an infringement on students' rights, which is one reason that these policies are more difficult to implement at the high-school level, given the greater independence of older students and their expressed needs for individuality and diversity. Freedom of expression, which is suppressed by the wearing of uniforms, has also been cited as a legal issue by the American Civil Liberties Union."
This is supporting my argument of expression of individuality and not a complete solution to the school problems and on top of that it has been cited as a legal issue. It is true that Pro has cited his points for his argument based on Assistant Professor Lillian O. Holloman"s argument. However what was stated were not the complete findings of Assistant Professor Lillian O. Holloman.
In response to the rebuttal of paragraph 4:
Quoting from Pro"s argument in round 2
"Uniforms prepare students for the reality of the world that awaits them. A great many professions, both high-skilled and otherwise, make use of a strict uniform dress code. The reasons for these include respect to the responsibility of the profession, respect to the people they interact with, or simply a desire to impress and give off an impression of attention to detail and good grooming. I shall give just a few examples. In the law industry, lawyers in most countries have a strict dress code before attending court, judges wear robes and in many jurisdictions, even wigs. Employees in banks have a strict dress code, extending even to the way they present their hair. Businessmen and government officials wear suits or office attire. Constitutional institutions like police and fire defence have their own uniforms. In more technical professions, less of this is seen, though janitors are an example of those who often wear a certain uniform. In short, including uniforms in school allow children to come to understand and expect the demands of appearance that the world makes of professionals."
I have listed the reasons, not the possible reasons, to the professions stated as examples by Pro to why these professions are required to have a uniform due to the vague explanation in the above paragraph to further support my previous argument to why these professions wear their uniforms due to reason and not for the sake of appearances, as concluded by Pro in round 2:
"In short, including uniforms in school allow children to come to understand and expect the demands of appearance that the world makes of professionals."
I too, stand by my argument that a free dress code is superior to a uniform dress code in terms of educating the children. Thank you for this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by KatieKat99 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||0|
Reasons for voting decision: good debate pretty even Pro just had better responces
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.