Teens and kids should wear school uniforms
Debate Rounds (5)
Also, you make the point of whatever you are wearing takes the focus off education, but rather, I believe it can enhance it. According to research done on the subject, there is no effect on academics, substance abuse, or absent days, when students are required to wear a uniform. Students tire easily of repetition, and it is necessary to create diversity in their schooling in order to keep them interested and to be ready to learn.
For your next point, students will get bullied regardless of what they wear. Bullying can happen even in uniform based schools. For example, uniforms can often cost a substantial amount of money, and if the parents don't have the income to provide the same quality of uniform as everyone else, they may get bullied. Bullying will happen regardless of what they wear, and very rarely is bullying focused solely on clothing.
2. When there's no debate on what a student is allowed wear to school, then that makes mornings easier for parents and for kids. Everyone knows exactly what the kids need to wear, their regulated school uniform. This can lead to a decrease in morning arguments.
3. Schools without a school uniform policy still have rules on what clothing is and is not allowed in school. There are usually rules regarding modesty issues, visible logos, offensive text on clothing, gang colors and symbols and more. Teachers and administrative staff must monitor the students' attire. This is of course avoided when all students are in uniform.
4. Many experts believe that when the entire student body is dressed in uniforms, they develop a stronger team mentality. When they are all dressed alike, their all-for-one-and-one-for-all comradery is boosted.
5. Buying a few school uniforms instead of a new school wardrobe every fall is much more economical. School uniforms are designed to stand up to everyday wear and repeated washing so most parents find that they can get away with buying a few sets.
6. With all the money a parent saves by not having to buy day to day clothes, they can (if they so choose) let their children buy a few nicer and more fashionable pieces for weekends and evenings. Wearing a uniform five days a week might make students appreciate their weekend fashions more--maybe enough to even take good care of them!
1. Do you have a source for this? I am just curious because the source I had listed the opposite; that clothing had no effect on behavior or academics. Also from my own personal experience, if there is any focus on fashion at all, it happens in the halls or outside of the classroom, rather then when the students are trying to learn.
2. It may make mornings easier, but unless a kid has a separate uniform for every day of the week, then it will be a hassle having to wash two or three pairs of clothing repeatedly.
3. It may be avoided partially, but staff often has to monitor students even more closely due to them having a strict dress code, and any students not dressing in an exact way will be written up. In my experience of going to both a school where a uniform was required, and when I went to one without, I saw way more students being written up for getting their uniform wrong, then when I went to a non-uniform school.
4. Where is the source for many experts?
5. This point is not valid because just as many normal clothes are required for school, as uniforms would be, so you would not actually be buying fewer clothes. Also uniforms often end up being a lot more pricey than normal clothing. People don't often find uniforms at goodwill or any cheap store like they can with clothing. This makes it an issue for lower income families.
6. This point requires your premise no. 5 to be true, which it is not.
In the instance of showing and intruder, that is certainly an interesting example. Do you mind showing me an example of where this has happened?
theironjet forfeited this round.
jakulanko forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 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:||0||5|
Reasons for voting decision: Both sides forfeited, nulling conduct. As to arguments, Con actually presented a source for his contention--Pro negated but "forgot" the source. His own assertion isn't really sufficient for rebuttal of Con's assertion, given that Con had evidence in his favor and Pro did not. So, arguments and sources to Con. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.
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.