Private Schools Should Have Their Students Wear Uniforms

1. Yes, my opponent has pin-pointed the central cause to self consciousness, or rather, he has pin-pointed the scientific explanation for self consciousness; he has not however, affectively refuted the fact students who cannot keep up with the latest trends or wear quality clothing are going to be more likely to feel self consciousness about themselves. My opponent didn’t actually refute that these factors may cause self consciousness, rather he attempted to refute the factors that cause self consciousness by giving the explanation as to why those factors cause self consciousness. My opponent’s argument may go as follows: P1. Not keeping up with the latest trends or wearing low quality clothing may cause self consciousness. P2. This self consciousness is explained by hormones. C1. Therefore hormones cause self consciousness, and not any other factor. This logic though, is flawed in that premise two only provides an explanation for premise one, whereas my opponent assumes that premise two follows premise one and thus leads to the conclusion. Since premise two does not lead into the conclusion, the conclusion therefore is also flawed. A logically sound argument when be provided like so: P1. Not keeping up with the latest trends or wearing low quality clothing may cause self consciousness, which is explained by hormones. C1. Therefore not keeping up with the latest trends or wearing low quality clothing is a factor explaining self consciousness among some teens. Biased source? My opponent makes the claim that my source is biased because it is a website that sells school uniforms. This is not an adequate basis for dismissing my source. Just because a source may be potentially biased does not mean that the source is wrong. Until my opponent can show that the information the source itself provides is flawed, the source should be used to support my argument. 2. My opponent has made an argument fallacy from personal experience. Since personal experience cannot be trusted as a legitimate source or even a norm, my opponent’s argument is therefore null. The fact remains that students may be distracted by the free dress clothing of other students. Implementing school uniforms eliminates this potential distraction. 3. My opponent drops this argument on the inadequate claim that my source is biased, without any proof that it is biased or any proof that the information within the source is flawed. In addition, the argument does not even require a source for proof, since it is an argument derived from logic and not from statistics. This argument can be considered dropped by my opponent. 4. It is irrelevant whether and actual instance has occurred in which a man intrudes onto a school campus and is not identified because there is no uniforms policy (although I am sure something like this as happened). What is relevant is that such a thing can happen, and this has been recognized by school administrators also. [1] The existence of cliques and gangs however, may be deterred in that school uniforms will make them look physically equal to everyone around them, as opposed to them using clothing (such as bandanas with certain colors in gangs) to off-set themselves from everyone else. 5. My opponent’s own argument works against him. He states, “They do not pick their targets based on what they wear, but whether if they can dominate and humiliate them.” What my opponent does not realize, is that bullies can easily take advantage of a student’s self consciousness over their clothing and use it against them therefore humiliating them. They use a student’s clothing in order to dominate that student. A bully will choose their victim to be a sub-assertive kid of course, but they can use the clothing of a sub-assertive kid as a way to bully that kid. Uniforms eliminate this problem. 6. My opponent claims that this argument contradicts arguments 1, 3, and 4, yet I do not see how any of those arguments are relevant to this one at all. Self expression and self identity is not a bad thing. The bad thing is judging others over what they wear, and not who they are. Implementing school uniforms eliminates problems and encourages students to express themselves in ways that are true to who they are, and allows students to base others off who they are and not what they own. My opponent wrongly states that students will always form into cliques and derogate others for not being a part of their click. Implementing school uniforms eliminates a material inequality among students, which is good because students should not base others off of material goods. 7. I read the entire report on school uniforms and student behavior and to put it quite bluntly, my opponent has misrepresented and falsely stated what study reports. For one, I am not arguing that school uniforms improve academic achievement, because they don’t. The study my opponent presented confirms the Long beach Study I presented, stating that the only flaw in it is that the study could have been in act for a few more years in order to draw a clearer correlation. In addition, the other study presented in the report also finds a correlation between school uniforms and reduced behavioral problems including less weapon related incidents and less incidents related to alcohol, drugs, and gangs. In particular, the studies found that bad behavior was reduced more in middle schools, as opposed to high schools. After looking through the entire source my opponent used to support his position, I found no mention of the study conducted by Michigan that finds no correlation between school uniforms and student behavior. I have used eight sources and about three studies proving that there is a correlation between school uniforms and a reduction in behavioral problems among student which contests with my opponent’s one study (which I couldn’t find in the source he presented) claiming there is no correlation. Just a reminder not to post any new arguments in the last round (standard debate conduct, although you may of course provide rebuttals) and I’d like to thank my opponent for a great debate. Over to you. 1. http://triblive.com...