Students should be required to wear school uniforms.

Pro provides multiple arguments for why a school uniform should be implemented. There are an abundance of sources defending this point. Such as the argument that it reduces violence and promotes hierarchical equality.

Con’s response is low-effort and too short, failing to address the many reasons of this. Con claims he’ll do rebuttals in round 2.

Pro forfeits the next round. Con claims that Pro refutes his own argument, but once again, this argument is low-effort and contains few lines. Con lacks an explanation as to why. This response contains no counter-arguments or sources.

In round 3, Pro points out the lack of arguments and proof from Con regarding disadvantages of school uniforms. Pro points out that uniforms will encourage students to dress for success and cites a study about how rules will lead to better discipline.

Con’s reply doesn’t make it clear exactly what his position is. He agrees with Pro on the point that school uniform should be based on what is most helpful for students.

But beyond that, none of this refutes or goes against what Pro is saying. So my main question is, what does Con think about whether or not schools should enforce school uniforms? Because I cannot currently determine his thoughts on the matter.

PRO offers 6 excellent arguments favoring school uniforms but does not go into much detail and only offers on scant argument and sources for each of these:

1) Relieves student insecurity about style/fashion/branding.
*sourcing another debater making the same argument is nowhere near as effective as actual peer-reviewed scientific study
2) Enhances equality
*a private boarding school is an extremely biased source here
3) Prepares students for professional clothing requirements
*broken link to source
4) Less expensive alternative to retail
*again we are asked to take an academic source's word for this. Real expenses would have been much stronger
5) Enhances school branding/spirit
*no sources
6) Enhances school security
*still relying on one debate source and one academic source

CON depends heavily one falsehood

1) The working world doesn't do uniforms often
*unsourced and manifestly false- Fast food, airlines, courthouses, police, fireman, athletes, postal workers, deliveries, hotels, military, doctors and nurses, the list is very long. Neither side bothers to give me the stats and I won't look them up myself and "often" is a relative term but left to my personal experience, I see workers in uniforms every day and will count that as "often" enough to make CON's argument manifestly false.

2) Students should be prepared to dress formally
* CON completely failed to notice that PRO has made a decent argument that uniforms "Prepares students for formal scenarios" All formal dress is a kind of uniform with widely varying parameters so accept PRO's argument that uniforms are good practice for formalwear. I don't buy CON's "formal without uniform" argument without a lot more detail: isn't any formal requirement a type of uniform? A tuxedo is as much a uniform as business casual- the rules are just different.

CON has given us one obviously false argument and one argument in support of PRO.

In Round 2, PRO forfeits and CON drops all of PRO's six arguments in spite of promising counters.

PRO correctly argues that CON's argument for formality aligns with PRO as an advantage. PRO then gives a few more unsourced but rational arguments:

7) Uniforms teach discipline
*no supporting arguments
8) Uniforms make excellent hand-me-downs
*more of a support for the less expensive argument in R1
9) Uniforms promote conformity
*just a restatement of the first argument
10) Reduces teacher bias
* No sourcing but I buy that some teachers make clothing based assumptions

CON acknowledges PRO's new arguments but doesn't lift a finger to counter any of them.

CON argues against his own "working world doesn't do uniforms argument" by switching to "mostly lower class does uniform." CON fails to explain why schools should not prepare students for lower class jobs.

CON argues that some races, body types, personality types are not suited to strict school uniform but provides no sourcing and straw mans a bit since PRO never argued in favor of "strict school uniforms." Also, most retail clothes also fail to flatter some body types and personality types but we have no comparion/contrast from either side.

At the end PRO offered 8 arguments, all insufficient in terms of examples and sourcing but most credible and at least partially persuasive. CON argued against his own R1 complaints of relevance and argued in seeming favor of PRO's plan to prepare students for formal situations with uniform requirements. CON's unrebuttable, last sentence argument that not every type is flattered fails t consider the same condition in non-uniform schools.

Ultimately, CON dropped 8 weakly supported arguments and offered no persuasive arguments in re[;y. ARGS to PRO. SOURCES to PRO for using 4 (fairly weak, biased) sources while CON never bothered. CONDUCT to CON for PRO's forfeit. Overall, PRO gets the point.