args

School Uniforms, on Balance, are Beneficial

Introduction and Important Procedural Matters Thanks for a good constructive speech, I had a lot of fun reading it. I'd first like to say, before any major rebuttals on my opponent's case, this is my burden of proof (I thought it would be obvious but I have to explain what it is, since my opponent has declared what my BoP is, when I am the only one with the right to do so): Enactment of school uniforms have more benefits than harms (hence "on balance"), by use of statistics or logical syllogisms (or otherwise direct evidence) School uniforms solve more problems than they produce (kind of like on balance, but kind of different) This is what my opponent has to prove in order to meet their burden of proof: Enactment of school uniforms have more harms than benefits (hence "on blance"), by use of statistics or logical syllogisms (or otherwise direct evidence) School uniforms produce more problems than they solve (kind of like on balance, but kind of different). We have the same kind of BoP, just inverses of each other. Thanks for letting me clarify this aspect, didn't know it was so important. ----- Rebuttals: (I will italicize my opponent's argument and then use normal formatting for how I respond) "[uniforms are] brutally overpriced for their quality." I have evidence that is in direct refutation with this. In my 3rd contention, labelled "Low Cost", I prove that there is at least one school uniform manufacturer that has very low prices for high quality uniforms (roughly $45 a year per student per uniform) (this is from French Toast (again, awesome name)). I also have a source from 2013 that said that 77% of school leaders believe that the annual cost per student is going to be under $150 a year, replacements included. Like most things, there is going to be one kind of "eletist" competitor in the market (just look at iPhone's at their relatively high cost), and I think that TrueGrits is this very thing. "One of the best portals for students to express themselves is clothing." I'd have to argue that writing is the one of the best portals for creativity, but I understand what you are trying to convey. People in most public schools that have school uniforms would still have the ability to express themselves, whether it be by wearing their hair differently than normal, wearing a bow, wearing armbands, or something related. The right to express oneself remains intact, thus this point is negated. "Heck, even If a student is a serial killer, he can wear a creepy mask" Not sure many schools are open to serial killers. Do you have a source to back this up? (sarcasm) "[freedom of expression is] something that everybody has somewhat of a right to" I have sufficiently proved that the freedom to express themselves remains intact, so this isn't a valid argument. Also, saying "somewhat" kind of diminishes that impact, since you are saying that nobody has the absolute, inalienable right to express themselves. "the Supreme court ruled in favor of school uniforms" Concession? Having the Supreme Court vote in your favor probably means you are correct in the modern-era. Even if this was just a simple typo, the Supreme Court released the following comment when they voted in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District: “[schools have the right to establish rules which regulate] the length of skirts or the type of clothing, to hair style,…[or] aggressive, disruptive action or even group demonstrations.” (quote found here: http://www.infoplease.com...) "First of all, this piece of evidence is a case of post hoc ergo propter hoc" Not true. If the city made no Ordinances in that time that reduced the instances of rape or violence, then we can obviously see that this is attributed to school uniforms. I get where you are coming from, but that's not true since the city didn't do anything crime-wise during that time really, just implemented school uniforms. "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"." Most likely not entirely attributable, but pretty darn attributable. There are variables, sure, but none that can impact crime as much as school uniforms. "further disproving much of the common proponent case." My point remains intact, since you have not really proven that school uniforms are not the cause of this sudden drop in crime in the area. ----- Closing Remarks: I am winning this round because: I have maintained my BoP with proper use of statistics and logical syllogisms I have proved that school uniforms are beneficial on balance I have successfully refuted my opponent's case, thus forcing ourselves to vote in affirmation due to no valid points on his side My opponent has not successfully proved that school uniforms are not beneficial, thus not holding up his part of the BoP. (I stated in R1 that both sides have the BoP, so he should have tried to uphold his BoP) I have used more credible sources than my opponent. Looking forward to your rebuttals