- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
The problem is that drinking and smoking being a bad thing has really only come with media's stigma. If you are told something is bad over and over often you want to know why and you want to experience why rather than listen to others. It is the same with people who have been smoking for years and see an ad about lung cancer, they will be a little on edge but eventually go back to smoking. Changing an age range/ taking a more active role in a child's life, to remain on topic in case of smoking and drinking, often that stigma is removed and they will come to their own conclusion. It also comes down to how parents raise their children. Personally I have no problem with the age limit being where it is in America, it does not affect me to be honest, though I do not foresee a complete societal meltdown from lowering it.
Satan was The Accuser, his purpose was to test a person's will and essentially review their life and their sins. (If I remember correctly) He was a "good guy" and he is a prime example of staring into the abyss until the abyss stares back. That is essentially what lead him to his fall. That is all according to books of faith that I do not subscribe to though I thought I'd put it into perspective.
Terribly sorry that I've not taken much time to review the debate we had though I cannot say I am personally inclined to do so. Mostly due to the fact that I am at the point where I am considering this my resignation from CD. As such I would like to say again that I am sorry I have not reviewed/ put the time I normally would into responding to you.
I'm not sure about schools in your area (I wouldn't use most in the sense of the majority of schools with uniforms in existence) but most private schools I know of also require i.d. Perhaps yours do not, I am going off my knowledge and you are going off of yours.
Typically students won't be flaunting any cleavage or sporting short enough skirts for you to see someone's knickers when standing next to them and not looking from below their skirt. In terms of cleavage that comes down to the teachers. The schools I know of typically monitor those things and correct them should they be seen.
Also simply because it is not absolute does not mean that it does not work. That has been proven through other mediums and applies here as well. You give too little credit to children in terms of maturity as well. Sure they could harass another child based on a missing button or a hole but that typically does not happen (still in terms of my knowledge/ schools in my area) either because of a lack of perception or simply not caring to such an extent.
I wouldn't say my fourth point is just plain stupid and ignorant, I would say that I don't agree with it but I wouldn't say that. People take pride in what they do, having a school uniform can potentially lead to students taking pride in that they are apart of a community (their school) and strive to better themselves for that reason. Or as I said previously it can potentially lead to a more orderly class room and a more disciplined and positive learning environment.
I don't find my fifth point cheap either, it can be beneficial to parents to purchase a uniform for their child instead of several upon several sets of clothing simply to be worn at school. That doesn't mean it always is.
You seem to think that I am speaking in absolutes, if I was then I apologize. (I've not reviewed my responses.) Things can or cannot work, simply because you do not break something does not mean crippling it means absolutely nothing.
Also please, please, please work on your sentence structure and grammar and spelling. I'm not saying this as an insult but I found your response a tad strange in places. Also work on being less condescending ( e.g. "Let me correct your points."), this is a debate not a stern talking to your adolescent child.
Cheers and thank you for my, potentially and probably, last debate on CD.
Schools that require uniforms often also require a form of ID to be carried with the student. As well the uniforms are often custom made and to obtain one you would have to go through the school and whomever they use to create and fit said uniforms. As well said schools are often smaller making staff to student interaction greater and thus student recognition often goes up.
Using the argument that you can magically bypass the school and use their uniform is like saying that you can put on casual clothes and go to a random public school. Sure it is easier and sure you can but you'll often be identified as a stranger as there are typically "hall monitors" stationed at the entrance and around the school. If such does not happen then there is the possibility that the school required ID card to actually entre the building. (Which a few more high security schools do.) Or in some cases the school may have security stationed outside the building that is to look after those coming and going.
As well if you did make it through which is possible what exactly would you do or accomplish? You couldn't go to a class as the schools often have a roster for which student is to attend whatever class. Should you show to a class and your name not be on the list then it is likely that the instructor would call down to find where you "should" be. Or if you seemed to be up to something of a malicious act then regardless of being a student or not you would likely be found and it would be taken care of.
It just isn't as simple as obtain, entre, profit. While it can be done you'd often not get very far with it. Though this is all according to my knowledge.
Typically school uniforms work better than non uniform dress codes in more than one way.
1. They keep inappropriate things out. Non uniform dress codes normally have leeway that allow Ms. Monica to flaunt some part of her body. Just because you don't see skin doesn't mean it isn't accentuated.
2. School uniforms often eliminate or lessen stress based upon social/ economic standing (at least within the school setting.) Unlike skin, if it isn't seen then there is something left to be imagined unless the student is confident in speaking of their social/ economic standing.
3. It is easier for authority figures to determine if a student is from a certain school or not, unless the person is willing to jump over quite a few hurdles it won't happen whereas it is fairly easy to gain entry into a school with non uniform dress codes.
4. Some would believe that uniforms improves academic performance. This is proposed as the use of uniforms typically increase discipline in the classroom which leads to a more orderly and enjoyable learning experience.
5. Uniforms are often more cost effective as the parents or the students, depending on circumstances, have to purchase less.
Uniforms aren't Stalanistic is any manner, they solve a lot of problems but that does not mean they are the only way to go. Uniforms can also create a few problems depending on where said uniforms are coming from. Take a religious school with uniforms geared toward one religion, some would say that their own religious dress code not being respected. In the end it is up to the parent/ student to choose whether they would like to have said student attend a school with uniforms or not.
The argument is old but I wanted to get a point across.
It is perfectly fine to allow students to bring phones to school with them provided that they not abuse that privilege by using said phones at inappropriate times. The problem that comes about is that quite a few students do not actually use the phones when permitted/ when acceptable and instead choose to use them during classwork/ lectures and so on.
"A poor person refers to a person who has the three basic necessities of life: Food, shelter and clothing, just that he has much less of it than a rich person."
That does not account for what the term "poor" when referring to a person's economical status actually defines. That is typically referred to as lower middle class. You cannot pick and choose what definition you wish to use when stating, "as a poor person." You cannot mix and match.