The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Students should be required to wear school uniform.

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: 2/17/2013 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,907 times Debate No: 30353
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)




Hello, everyone, welcome to this debate.

Today I would like to debate in affirmation of the topic that students should be required to wear school uniform. My first justification is that it creates an orderly, organized atmosphere which enforces discipline. My second argument is that it eliminates part of the popularity system. And my last argument is that it generates revenue for the government.

Although this has no solid, tangible evidence, it is true that having uniforms creates an organized and orderly atmosphere. It is no secret that private schools and schools of high ranking all require their students to wear uniforms. When students are required to wear uniforms, discipline is in action. And discipline constitutes good education. A subpoint of this argument is that it gives the wearer a sense of honor and pride to wear such a uniform.

My next point of analysis is that this eliminates the popularity system. Go to any school, and you could be sure to find some sort of clique or group ruling the school, or at least a complex system of factions. This is inevitable. And one of the main causes of this is fashion. At the initial first day of school everyone is at square one. No one knows no one, and there is no popularity system. So how does people know who's going to be popular, and who to be friends with? The first reactions is to look at their clothes. Do they dress nice? Do they wear this brand? Once a group of girls have established a clique, there is already a system of clans and gangs beginning to form. The remedy to this phenomenon is to eliminate a cause of popularity, fashion, by making uniform-wearing mandatory. Only this way will people consider others for who they really are, not by their clothes.

My last contention is that this generates revenue for the government. When the uniforms are sold to the students, they have to pay taxes, which therefore generates funds for the government. This might seem pretty minimal compared to other revenue-earning tactics, but consider this: thousands of schools across the country, with hundreds of students flooding the campus every year, selling uniforms. After a decade or so, we would have cleared a significant portion of our national debt while giving leeway to other fund-needing programs.

To sum it all up, my three main assertions are that: uniforms create a sense of conduct, uniforms eliminate the complex popularity system in schools, and lastly, uniforms generate significant revenue for the government. Thank you.


Thank You
I hope this is a good debate!
1. Violates student"s freedom of expression

The first Amendment gives students the freedom of expression. (Talk about us)
We can give limitations to gang clothes but otherwise the students could wear whatever they want
No one can show their individualism with uniforms.

2. Uniforms are extremely expensive
According to BBC most uniforms are extremely expensive and some can"t afford them
Uniforms are expensive. As stated by, who sources the US Department of Education, NCES, ECS, NAESP, and University of Florida and last verified on July 22, 2012, the average annual co
st of school uniforms is $249 a kid.
Uniforms esp. jackets. are more expensive than a regular child"s clothing

This will badly affect poor families.

3. causes bullying
Uniforms Represents a school
This is bad b/c someone from a rival school could start bullying or fighting outside of school while walking to and from school.
More fights are likely to develop more often.
Because of these uniforms, people could get bullied
Thank You
And Please vote CON/NEG
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for your arguments.

As your 1st argument, that it will violate students' freedom of expression, may be true, it can be true in a harmful way. For example, this will stimulate the popularity hierarchy once students could dress whatever they want. The ones with the fancy clothes could easily become the top dogs of the school, which wouldn't happen if uniforms were banned. And the 1st amendment says that yes, there may be freedom of expression, but then why don't we ban uniforms altogether? There are lots of private schools out there that still use uniforms. Why don't we just ban uniforms in those schools?

As for your 2nd argument, yes, uniforms are expensive, but normal clothes that popular girls and boys buy to show everyone that they are "cool" are also expensive, maybe even more. They buy them in loads. Open any girl's wardrobe and you would find tons of dresses and jeans that would cost much more than 249$, I can assure you. And besides, even if some students do not buy so much clothes, this is still only a one-time thing. They just need to buy it once, and that is it. For just 249$ a kid, we could substantially improve our national debt. A poor family could at least afford 249$ for one kid, and if they can't (which is highly unlikely) they will not be denied the opportunity. The school could pay for them.

And finally, for your last argument, that it causes bullying, that is highly unlikely as students will not wear the uniform outside of school. If students want to express themselves, which you had said yourself, then they wouldn't wear the uniforms unless required. Therefore students would only wear them inside school. And even if this is not true, our nation isn't so corrupted that fistfights and riots would break out just because of uniforms. And bullying is mainly inside a single school, not a rival school student picking on another school student. No one would bully a stranger that they don't even know, unless they are a gang member, and gang members don't go to school.

Before I end, I would like to add to my previous contentions. Since you have not given me your opinions on my contentions, I assume you agree with me. If not, then please tell me why you do not believe so.

1. Discipline/honor
It creates a discipline needed for the real world, and it also gives the atmosphere a more honorable feeling. Students would feel more honored to don their school uniform. It creates a sense of pride.

2. Eliminates popularity system
By closing the gaps between the well-dressed students and the poor-dressed students by giving them all a mutual uniform, we are making friendship more easier. A common barrier of friendship is popularity, and popularity is partly caused by clothing. Once students all wear the same uniform, they can accept others for their inside, not outside.

3. Lastly this generates revenue for the government.
As my opponent has kindly stated, uniforms cost 249$. Imagine all the schools in the country, with huge numbers of students enrolling, multiplied by 249$. That can generate pretty big revenue. And while this can inflict some financial damage to poor families, it truly does not really hurt them, as 1. They should be able to scrape at least 249$, and 2. if they can't the school will pay for them.

Thank you.


Thanks for a detailed reply!
First I will be refuting my opponents 3 arguments (no, I don't agree with them), then I will be going back to strengthen my own.
My opponents 1st argument was about how uniforms create an orderly enviornment. They also talk about an honor and pride to wear such uniforms
This is completely wrong in this case.
These uniform are not letting students to express themselves. My opponents show nothing in their case that expression is going to create a distruptive enviornment. Students have the right to express themselves
My oponent also talks about first impression causes a popularity system in their 2nd argument
However, There are other ways to see someone for the first time, not neccessarily their clothing. They can see people based on their hairstyle, and other characteristics.
Their third argument is that the uniforms generate money to the government.
However, Judge, you must see that this is completely non unique
This can also be turned to my side of the debate.
People without uniforms buy regular clothes and if they buy regular clothes ( my opponent says that there is a LOT more regular clothes than uniforms in the 2nd round) then shouldn't there be more tax being generated WITHOUT uniforms?
Now I will strengthen my arguments
My first argument is that it violates freedom of expression
My opponent states that there is a hierarchy in the school
However, my opponentes show no link to why this is harmful.
If there is a hierarchy, (I am not agreeing to this) then the students who are low in the hierarchy can still learn. They are still getting an education, not harming anyone at all!
My refutation against hierarchy earlier can be crossapplied.
I stated that There are other ways to see someone for the first time, not neccessarily their clothing. They can see people based on their hairstyle, and other characteristics.
My second argument was that uniforms are expensive and they cost $249
My opponent says that people buy way too many clothes, more than $249
First of all, many girls aren't that rich. There are many others that do not have more than $249 to spare.
This leads me to their second refutation, which was that you only need to buy this once.
I agree, you only need to buy this once...until you outgrow it. In almost one year, you have to buy another set, for another $249.
If you wear uniforms since kindergarten to 12th grade, then $3,237 will be spend on uniforms alone for a whole student going to school. What if the family has more than one kid? If they have 2, it will be double, and if they have 3, the price would be tripled and so on and so forth.
My opponent also talked about how this sustains the economy.
Again, I will like to appy my previous refutation which is that
One must see that this is completely non unique
This can also be turned to my side of the debate.
People without uniforms buy regular clothes and if they buy regular clothes ( my opponent says that there is a LOT more regular clothes than uniforms in the 2nd round) then shouldn't there be more tax being generated WITHOUT uniforms?
They also talked about how schools can pay for us.
However, this is wrong because school do not have that much money at hand
My 3rd argument is that this cause bullying
They state that students don't wear their uniforms outside of school.
This is completely wrong!
What do they wear once school ends? Do they go naked? (joke intended)
People do walk to and from school. Obviously, they will meet rival members of another school, and since Students at my school hate students at a nearby school, some people would go into fistifights
Since none of my opponents arguments stand, the CON/NEG should win
Thank You
Debate Round No. 2


Thank you very much, Westernguy2.

Rebuttal to your 1st counter argument, on the freedom and expression:

Yes, having expression will not create a disruptive environment, but however, but with uniforms there will be a better environment. There is no harm for freedom of expression, but there is benefits for uniforms. After all, another meaning of the word "uniform" means organized. So while the neg argues that there will be no harm, I argue that there will be no harm AND benefits. Yes, students have the right of expression, but again, uniforms are already used by much of the private schools in our country. If students have to have freedom of expression, then why don't we ban uniforms in those schools? Obviously this does not violate the 1st amendment as much schools already use uniforms, so his counterargument is void, and my 1st contention still stands true.

Rebuttal to your 2nd counterargument, on the popularity argument:

Agreed. Hairstyles can be expressed for popularity, I wholeheartedly agree with that. However, although enforcing uniform-wearing does not COMPLETELY reduce popularity, it reduces a good portion of it, as most people look at the clothes. And that is still good, and is still a benefit. There is no disadvantage to it. Also, the reason why clothes are the main factors while other details are minor ones is because clothes have brand names. People want to look for good brands, and it tells people if the wearer is rich or not. Hairstyles do not have brands, it is really not considered much. As long as you are wearing Hollister or Nike no one pays much attention to your hairstyle. So, the neg wants completely or nothing. He wants the popularity system to remain, or to be completely destroyed. However, this is a bad attitude, as we are reducing, say, 80% of it, which is much better than not doing it at all. Therefore my second contention is still standing.

Rebuttal to 3rd argument, taxes:

Actually, this is not true. You say that more taxes are generated with regular clothes. Yes, of course it does! However, this is not a choose-one option. It's not like you have to ONLY buy the uniform and never buy regular clothes again. You can buy both! You can wear normal clothes outside of school, which is actually more than the time inside of school (per week). So basically buying uniforms is an add-on which helps generate revenue alongside regular clothes. Your take is too extreme; people will obviously continue to buy regular clothes. Let's say regular clothes generate x revenue. Uniforms generate y revenue. He says generating x is better than generating y. I say that we generate both x and y. Therefore this contention is still standing.

To refute your arguments which you strengthened:

1st contention:

A popularity hierarchy is obviously harmful! No one wants to be left out just because they wear ratty clothes. Isn't it better if everyone is on the same level, without rankings based on clothes? Yes, lower people can learn. However, it is not about learning, but the mental damage he/she takes from always being the last one called in kickball, etc. And mental damage does hurt learning. If you are a loner at school because you wear bad clothes, then in a group project you will have no teammates, since no one wants to be with you. Therefore you have to do it all yourself, which is not a good learning way. For your part on hairstyle, I have already refuted above, so your 1st contention is refuted.

2nd contention:
You say girls are not rich. Maybe. But girls DO love shopping, and DO love buying. At an immature age they do not know how to save money and will carelessly spend money regardless of how much money they have. And since you are saying girls do not buy too much clothing, you are hurting your own argument/refutation that more taxes will be generated if people buy regular clothes. And you say students can outgrow. Isn't this good, as it generates more revenue? Sure, this may harm the family, but no family is too poor to buy a mere uniform. They spend a lot on school supplies. And your estimate on how much it takes to buy uniforms from k-12 is too extreme. They will outgrow, but probably only in two or three year intervals, not every year. And while it may cause some damage, uniform prices vary, from 20$-249$ (the most extreme). They won't buy uniforms all priced at 249$. And if the family has more than one kid then the older kid can give his old uniform to the younger. Families aren't too rich to buy the most expensive uniforms, every year, for each of their kids. Therefore this contention is refuted.

I do not know which contention this is, but you said that more tax is generated with regular clothes. You basically restated your previous statement, and I already refuted that above. Therefore this is refuted.
For schools paying for needy families, this is already used in action. It is even used in my school. Therefore this is also refuted.

3rd contention:

They wear regular clothes outside of school, obviously. Once school ends, then they wear the uniform until they get home and change. For your joke, haha. And this contention is very illogical as bullies will not just bully people just because they are from a different school. Besides, schools wouldn't be so close that people from both schools can meet on their way home. Again, people will not bully strangers that they do not know. For your personal example, as you have yourself witnessed it, I will not deny it, but keep in mind that your two schools is two out of a million schools in the nation. What may be true for your school may not be true to the millions of thousands of schools out there.

As I have rebutted all your counterarguments, I have completely polished all my contentions and they are still standing. I have refuted all your contentions, so they are all void. And not only due to the amount of contentions still unrefuted, or the refutations made, the factor of the winning person should be focused on the reasoning and logic behind their arguments, am I right?

Thank you Westernguy2 for having this nice debate with me.


WesternGuy2 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by robertqiu 4 years ago
just go to my profile, then my debates, and it is called Normal school is better than homeschool. There are 2 of them. one of them is homeschool vs normal school, and it is a debate against a person called oneperson. DO NOT VOTE FOR THAT DEBATE. There is another one against archangel35, and yeah. Vote for that one.
Posted by WesternGuy2 4 years ago
sure, what is the url for the debate?
Posted by robertqiu 4 years ago
yeah I agree. Hey western guy me and this other guy are having a debate and it is getting a bunch of comments. We haven't finished yet. When we finish, can you vote?
Posted by WesternGuy2 4 years ago
this is shameful
this was a good debate!
Someone should have voted!
Posted by robertqiu 4 years ago
Posted by WesternGuy2 4 years ago
Sorry about the forfeit
I was prepping for a debate tournament and I didn't have time to post my summary
No votes have been placed for this debate.