The Instigator
sparkemi000
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
SnaxAttack
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

Should Kids be allowed to Wear warpaint to school?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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...
SnaxAttack
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/24/2015 Category: People
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 323 times Debate No: 80123
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)

 

sparkemi000

Pro

I think kids have the freedom of expression. So why do they have to wear school uniforms and little to no make-up. I think that if kids wanted we should be allowed to show who we are. War paint is a way of revealing your true self. To show what you support. I want to be able to wear war paint to school to show that I am who I am and no one cane judge me.
SnaxAttack

Con

I accept the challenge for this debate! My argument will be posted in the next round, so I will let my opponent take over the debate currently.
Debate Round No. 1
sparkemi000

Pro

I have the freedom of expression. I should be allowed to wear war paint to express myself. If I am not allowed to then technically that would be taking my rights away. So I say I should be allowed to wear war paint to school no matter what anyone says.
SnaxAttack

Con

Before beginning my argument, I wish to bring up a definition on the word "Warpaint" since my opponent has failed to define it. The definition of "Warpaint" is: "Warpaint are an American indie rock band from Los Angeles, California, formed in 2004". I ask my opponent on why should you wear the corpse's of a band to school? That is just wrong, and not a right to murder someone and put corpses on your body. So unless my opponent can justify a reason of wearing "Warpaint" to school, this debate is basically over.

Source (Just in case you do not believe me):
http://warpaintwarpaint.com...
Debate Round No. 2
sparkemi000

Pro

War paint is paint that you wear to express your struggles and hardships. In the past people have worn war paint in the form of a corpse to represent that their friends and family have fallen. Modern war paint is used to show your religion, addictions, friends, likes and dislikes. I say that If I want to show that that I am atheist and have been through lots of pain by putting on war paint with a cross and stitches then I should be allowed to do so freely. I believe that as long as it is appropriate (no profanities or inappropriate displays) then I have that freedom at school. The Constitution clearly states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. I can wear it in school.
SnaxAttack

Con

In the last round, I stated: "So unless my opponent can justify a reason of wearing 'Warpaint' to school, this debate is basically over". My opponent clearly fails to see the definition, and is trying to change it; but fails to do so. The definition was established within the second round as: "Warpaint are an American indie rock band from Los Angeles, California, formed in 2004". I gave time for my opponent to define it, but fails to do so, so we must follow the definition that I have given.

My opponent also failed to answer my question on how wearing the band "Warpaint" is good what so ever. In this round, he just reestablished his own definition, and not the definition that I gave. Because of this, the winner of the debate can easily be determined.

Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by SnaxAttack 1 year ago
SnaxAttack
Technically Pro failed to define War Paint earlier on with the debate. If he did define it, where is it? Its not cheating when you need to establish a definition, in which he did not do. I defined War Paint, however in the second round (Which I did fairly give him time to define), he did not define it so I established a definition. In my quote of the definition I sad: "Warpaint are an American indie rock band from Los Angeles, California, formed in 2004". In debate rules, this is the definition that will be used since it wasn't established at a time.

If my opponent wants another debate, with his definition of War Paint, I will happily oblige.
Posted by PowerPikachu21 1 year ago
PowerPikachu21
ehh... Con cheated a bit. He did not define war paint, therefore may (and probably not; I sure haven't) not have known "War Paint" rockband existed. Con took advantage of this situation and showed us the rock band, which Pro was likely NOT referring to. He said, and I quote "War paint is a way of revealing your true self. To show what you support." wearing the skin of a rock band doesn't seem fit for this. (except if you are a psychopath) By "war paint", he obviously meant PAINT, not human skin. I'd vote Pro, but I can't.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by U.n 1 year ago
U.n
sparkemi000SnaxAttackTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: Con cited a source; Pro did not.
Vote Placed by Balacafa 1 year ago
Balacafa
sparkemi000SnaxAttackTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro should have defined the terms.
Vote Placed by TheRussian 1 year ago
TheRussian
sparkemi000SnaxAttackTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Con won by a sneaky use of definition. Pro seemed to ignore this and blunder on with his arguments. If he had put up any resistance to Con's definition, he would've won. Conduct points to Pro because of Con's use of a dirty move.