School Uniforms, on Balance, are Beneficial

I, Con, will be taking the side that School uniforms, on balance, are not beneficial, meaning I if it is proved beyond a reasonable doubt that uniforms do not bring benefits, even if there is no harm proved, then I have proved the topic and therefore should win. School uniforms are a burden, a hassle, and expensive from years and years of personal experience. Burden of Proof: Since the Instigator has not placed a burden upon himself, I'd like to take the opportunity to give her a 3-pronged burden that she must prove in order to win this debate. 1) School uniforms are an affordable solution to a multitude of problems. 2) Their benefits outweigh the harms (hence "on balance"). 3) Evidence and hard statistics prove Pro's case without false causation or logical fallacies. If any fragment of these branches are left unproved, then I advise the voters to vote for me. Arguments: Argument 1: Overpriced Many school uniforms are not beneficial towards kids, their families, and their financial states since they are brutally overpriced for their quality. I can definitely say this out of my personal experience of attending a private school since preschool that requires uniforms. For non-formal days, one must wear a collared shirt, pants/shorts, and a belt (shoes not included in uniform but must be a certain color). On formal days, students are required to wear an oxford shirt, a blazer or v-neck sweater, a tie, dress shoes, black socks, and long pants. According to True Grits, a uniform provider to many including us, a pair of pants (65% polyester) costs $39.95, shorts (65% polyester) $37.95, shirts (65% polyester) $27.45, blazers (100% polyester) $141, v-neck sweaters (100% acrylic yarn) $40.95, and oxford shirts (40% polyester without collar sizes) $30.45 [. https://www.truegrits.com...]. These articles of clothing are outrageously priced considering they are made mostly out of polyester and acrylic yarn, two extremely cheap discount designer fabrics. The same style polo shirt can be found for $8 at Target and is made with 100% cotton [. http://www.target.comp...] Pro says that uniforms financially help people. This argument proves otherwise. Argument 2: omg lexus, but what about the freedomomom of expersion? Whether the supreme court says it or not, I say it"school uniforms (on balance) are not beneficial because they take away freedom of "expersion" as Lexus likes to put it. One of the best portals for students to express themselves is clothing. If a student is a goth, he/she can wear black clothes. If a student is a golfer, he/she can wear golf clothes. If a student is a sports fan, he/she can wear a jersey. Heck, even If a student is a serial killer, he can wear a creepy mask. These are all examples of freedom of expression, something that everybody has somewhat of a right to. To prove this through the use of evidence, in a common case known as Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, the Supreme court ruled in favor of school uniforms saying "it can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate. " Another case resolved by the US First Circuit Court of Appeals is Richards v. Thurston, where the court ruled that "compelled conformity to conventional standards of appearance" does not "seem a justifiable part of the educational process. " [ahcuah. com] This argument is impactful because, with self-expression comes a multitude of benefits. The 6 main benefits are becoming happier, having an opportunity to help others, gaining a form of release, self-discovery, influencing others, and helping you connect with others you might not normally connect with. [. http://glambistro.com...] Argument 3: Key Findings of Proponents Are Inaccurate Many proponents of this case try to prove that school uniforms are beneficial by citing a piece of evidence from the Long Beach School District to prove a direct correlation between uniforms and less crime. First of all, this piece of evidence is a case of post hoc ergo propter hoc, meaning "after it, therefore because of it". In short, this is a false cause because there are plenty of other variables than uniforms that could have affected the crime rates. Perhaps the DA's office established a new program to lower crime rates, there is no way of knowing whether uniforms actually caused a drop in crime rates. The second part of this argument is that the study itself quotes "it is not clear that these results are entirely attributable to the uniform policy". They admit to a false cause, further disproving much of the common proponent case. Conclusion: Thank you for reading my speech.