The Instigator
williamfoote
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points
The Contender
eyeballsac
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

The U.S. Government has the right to make laws regarding a national dress code.

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 3 votes the winner is...
williamfoote
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/6/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 641 times Debate No: 41755
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (3)

 

williamfoote

Con

The government has no right to tell a person what to wear. This debate will be targeting national dress codes in the U.S.
eyeballsac

Pro

I feel passionately about the need for a dress code. Because if we didn't have one, then why didn't the unicorns eat my pancakes this morning? This I ask you, because in a world of code and honor, we can truly become on with the Jedis and get rid of Justin Beiber for good. I challenge you in this debate because I believe that one day a man can ride a unicorn to work and not be laughed at by his fellow co-workers. One day, we will be able to put a stop to people stubbing their pinky toe on the hard corner of their coffee tables, and start freezing Legos so that we can make Jell-O. I believe that we can all come together for a stand against these wrong things of the world.

I conclude my beginning argument.
Debate Round No. 1
williamfoote

Con

Thank you eyeballsac for accepting my challenge in this debate. I the Opposition believe that the government has no right to tell a person what to wear. I also want to make clear that this debate is not regarding the statement of "Should the government U.S. enforce a dress code" but rather "CAN the United States government enforce a dress code". Given this, I believe that the government has no right to do so. Since when does the government have the right to tell a person what to wear or what to look like? American citizens are given the right to free speech in the first amendment of the constitution which says quote, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging free speech (endnote)." This amendment gives people the right of free speech, which allows a person to speak through their clothing, their body, their dialect/slang etc. As long as he/she is not endangering national security, justice, or personal safety and last time I checked a person that looked different was not endangering anyone or anything with his/her appearance.
Secondly, I would like to state that I realize that certain types of clothing may be deemed potentially offensive or inappropriate, but I believe that this is not a valid reason to enforce dress code in the U.S. For example if there is a certain shirt bad-mouthing a certain president, banning the shirt would not eliminate the message behind the shirt.

Thank You and this concludes my arguments for this round.
eyeballsac

Pro

Did you even read my argument?


I guess not.


To refute your rebuttal, I must use some very good refution skills. In order to refute any kind of rebuttal, one must also be able to rebut any kind of refutal. When refuting rebuttals or rebutting refutals, one must always be one with themselves, always staying to their true passions. Mine personally is chocolate pudding. So... All in all, chocolate pudding should be enough to suffice my refute.


CHOCOLATE PUDDING



Thank you for your time.
Debate Round No. 2
williamfoote

Con

My opponent stated that chocolate pudding was a valid refute but in reality does not apply to this topic. To end, I would like to state that the government doesn't have a right to tell me what to wear and can therefore make no laws that abridge these actions unless my clothing harms people, which it does not. Thank You and I hope I have proven that my point well.
eyeballsac

Pro

In response to my opponent telling me that chocolate pudding was not a valid refute only goes to show how wrong he truly is. If one does not become one with thier inner pudding, may it be vanilla, chocolate, or butterscotch, then he cannot truly call himself human and be part of this pudding society. If we live in a world where nobody appreciates their inner pudding anymore, then what is the use of living?
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by themohawkninja 3 years ago
themohawkninja
Nudity is already against the law, so that doesn't seem like much of a point.
Posted by Citrakayah 3 years ago
Citrakayah
It's easy, just argue against nudity.
Posted by themohawkninja 3 years ago
themohawkninja
Debating against SCOTUS is going to be tough.
Posted by TN05 3 years ago
TN05
I'm tempted to take this up and troll.
Posted by TheMagicCrayon 3 years ago
TheMagicCrayon
To be honest, this is an incredibly hard debate to take up.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by TrueScotsman 3 years ago
TrueScotsman
williamfooteeyeballsacTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: These trolls coming in to ruin debates, in which the instigator had no intent to go down that route are probably worse than full forfeits. They waste time, and might even dissuade people from wanting to debate here. Trolling should only be allowed if it is initially specified by the instigator, or if both parties agree before hand.
Vote Placed by Yraelz 3 years ago
Yraelz
williamfooteeyeballsacTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Going con. Pro just trolled.
Vote Placed by supershamu 3 years ago
supershamu
williamfooteeyeballsacTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Though the pudding argument personally did sway me, I understand that to "normal" people it must fall on def ears. So I must give the more convincing argument to Con