By Edward Abbey

(GUN CONTROL)

If guns are outlawed
Only outlaws will have guns
(True? False? Maybe?)

Meaning weapons. The right to own, keep, and bear arms. A sword and a lance, or a bow and a quiverful of arrows. A crossbow and darts. Or in our time, a rifle and a handgun and a cache of ammunition. Firearms.

In medieval England a peasant caught with a sword in his possession would be strung up on a gibbet and left there for the crows. Swords were for gentlemen only. (Gentlemen!) Only members of the ruling class were entitled to own and bear weapons. For obvious reasons. Even bows and arrows were outlawed–see Robin Hood. When the peasants attempted to rebel, as they did in England and Germany and other European countries from time to time, they had to fight with sickles, bog hoes, clubs–no match for the sword-wielding armored cavalry of the nobility.

In Nazi Germany the possession of firearms by a private citizen of the Third Reich was considered a crime against the state; the statutory penalty was death–by hanging. Or beheading. In the Soviet Union, as in Czarist Russia, the manufacture, distribution, and ownership of firearms have always been monopolies of the state, strictly controlled and supervised. Any unauthorized citizen found with guns in his home by the OGPU or the KGB is automatically suspected of subversive intentions and subject to severe penalties. Except for the landowning aristocracy, who alone among the population were allowed the privilege of owning firearms, for only they were privileged to hunt, the ownership of weapons never did become a widespread tradition in Russia. And Russia has always been an autocracy–or at best, as today, an oligarchy.

In Uganda, Brazil, Iran, Paraguay, South Africa–wherever a few rule many–the possession of weapons is restricted to the ruling class and to their supporting apparatus: the military, the police, the secret police. In Chile and Argentina at this very hour men and women are being tortured by the most up-to-date CIA methods in the effort to force them to reveal the location of their hidden weapons. Their guns, their rifles. Their arms. And we can be certain that the Communist masters of modern China will never pass out firearms to their 800 million subjects. Only in Cuba, among dictatorships, where Fidel’s revolution apparently still enjoys popular support, does there seem to exist a true citizen’s militia.

There must be a moral in all this. When I try to think of a nation that has maintained its independence over centuries, and where the citizens still retain their rights as free and independent people; not many come to mind. I think of Switzerland. Of Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland. The British Commonwealth. France, Italy. And of our United States.

When Tell shot the apple from his son’s head, he reserved in hand a second arrow, it may be remembered, for the Austrian tyrant Gessler. And got him too, shortly afterward. Switzerland has been a free country since 1390. In Switzerland basic. national decisions are made by initiative and referendum–direct democracy–and in some cantons by open-air meetings in which all voters participate. Every Swiss male serves a year in the Swiss Army and at the end of the year takes his government rifle home with him–where he keeps it for the rest of his life. One of my father’s grandfathers came from Canton Bern.

There must be a meaning in this. I don’t think I’m a gun fanatic. I own a couple of small-caliber weapons, but seldom take them off the wall. I gave up deer hunting fifteen years ago, when the hunters began to outnumber the deer. I am a member of the National Rifle Association, but certainly no John Bircher. I’m a liberal–and proud of it. Nevertheless, I am opposed, absolutely, to every move the state makes to restrict my right to buy, own, possess, and carry a firearm. Whether shotgun, rifle, or handgun.

Of course, we can agree to a few commonsense limitations. Guns should not be sold to children, to the certifiably insane, or to convicted criminals. Other than that, we must regard with extreme suspicion any effort by the government–Iocal, state, or national–to control our right to arms. The registration of firearms is the first step toward confiscation. The confiscation of weapons would be a major and probably fatal step into authoritarian rule–the domination of most of us by a new order of “gentlemen.” By anew and harder oligarchy,

The tank, the B-52, the fighter-bomber, the state-controlled police and military are the weapons of dictatorship. The rifle is the weapon of democracy. Not for nothing was the revolver called an “equalizer.” Egalite implies liberte. And always will. Let us hope our weapons are never needed–but do not forget what the common people of this nation knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny.

If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military. The hired servants of our rules. Only the government–and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws.

[Note about the Author: Edward Abbey lives in Wolf Hole, Arizona. A former ranger for the National Park Service, Abbey now describes himself as an "Agrarian anarchist." He writes frequently about the beauty of the American west and the ways in which that beauty has been spoiled by government, business, and tourism. His many books include such novels as Fire on the Mountain ( 1963), The Monkey Wrench Gang (1975), and Good News (1980), and several collections of essays, such as Desert Solitaire (1968), Abbey's Road (1979), and, most recently, Beyond the Wall: Essays from the Outside (1984 ). As the following 1979 essay reveals, Abbey values the importance of the individual in a world in which individuals are at risk.]

MLA Citation (essay from a book): Abbey, Edward. “The Right to Arms.” Abbey’s Road. New York: Plume, 1979. 130-132.

Source: http://www2.hawaii.edu/~dennisk/eng100/gunsabbey.html

RESEARCH (LINKS and RESOURCES)

LINKS:

1. Helpful place to get some topic ideas: RESEARCHPAPER.com;

2. Honolulu Advertiser

3. Star-Bulletin

4. Honolulu Weekly

5. KCC Library Page

6.UH MANOA Library Page

RESOURCES:

7. Conducting Library Research:

A. ACCESS FROM HOME;

B. FEATURES OF THE LIBRARY’s MAIN PAGE;

C. USING EBSCO HOST (journals, PDF, HTML);

D. EVALUATING WEB PAGES;

E. ISSUES AND CONTROVERSIES ON FILE (topics);

(issues and controversies is located on the first floor of the library, in the reference section)

F. OPPOSING VIEWPOINTS (topics);

(the opposing viewpoints series is dispersed throughout the library).

Source: http://www2.hawaii.edu/~davink/ARGUMENTATIVE/Argk.html

Pros                                        Cons

Boxing is a very dangerous sport. Every year both amateur and professional boxers die in matches, or afterwards as a result of injuries. Others, such as Michael Watson, are disabled for life as a result of beatings in the ring. Medical studies also show that boxing can lead to long-term brain-damage, and to illnesses such as Parkinson’s disease. For these reasons all the major medical associations call for an end to boxing. Banning boxing would mean an end to needless deaths, injuries and brain-damage.		Boxers know the risks of their sport and choose freely to fight. They are also well-paid for the dangers of fighting. We have to allow people to make their own decisions in life. The government should not ban something adults choose to do unless it clearly affects other people. In boxing, it is the boxer who takes the risk and who will pay the price, no one else. Other sports are also dangerous, for example horse-riding, skiing or parachuting – should we ban those too?
Boxing is unlike any other sport. The aim of boxing is to hurt the other man, and above all to knock him out. The sport appeals to the worst and most violent parts of human nature. Such a savage sport has no place in modern society. We should not let men do this to each other. We should not offer money to encourage them to fight. We should also ban it as a form of public entertainment.		With running, boxing is the purest form of sport. All sport is about testing the human body and reactions against others. Boxing does this in the most simple and direct way possible. There is no point trying to deny our human nature – man is an aggressive animal and sports provide a safe outlet for that aggression. Contact sports such as rugby, American Football or Ice Hockey can also be brutal. Society was much less violent sixty or seventy years ago when children were often taught to box at school. That way they learned to control their aggression and to keep violence for the ring.
Boxing exploits young men (and sometimes women now). Some start before the age of ten. They often don’t have enough education to make a proper decision about the risks of their sport even once they are adults. They train hard for long hours, trusting a coach to prepare their body and a manager to arrange fights and handle money. Often those around the boxer do very well at his (or her) expense. This gives them a reason to make the fighter take more fights, even if that would be dangerous. Even successful champions (e.g. Mike Tyson) often end up broke and desperate.		Some boxers have been exploited, and that is wrong. And some have “wasted” their money on high-living – just like rock stars or footballers do. Should the government stop them spending their own money as they wish? Many boxers do handle their money and other affairs sensibly, for example, Evander Holyfield, or Lennox Lewis. More important is the way boxing offers a way out of poverty for working class boys. There isn’t much hope in the inner cities. Isn’t it better for children to want to be boxers when they grow up than drug dealers and gangsters?
Boxing has to have stricter rules than other sports because it is so much more dangerous. Injuries happen in other sports but they are accidental. In boxing the injuries are the point of the sport and they are much more serious. In spite of all the regulations, deaths and serious injuries take place every year in boxing. And they happen in amateur fights as well as professional ones, so headguards seem to make little difference. Clearly it is not possible to control boxing well enough so that it is safe. The only way to make boxing safe is to ban it.		Those in charge of boxing work hard to make sure that it is as safe as possible. Both professional and amateur fights are run under very strict rules to make the risks as small as possible. Medical staff and equipment have to be on hand, and boxers are checked before fights to make sure they are fit enough to take part. Having different weight divisions (Lightweight, Middleweight, Heavyweight, etc.) means that fights should not be too unequal. Referees are there to stop fights if necessary. Amateur fighters wear headguards and aim to score points rather than knockouts. No other sport takes such care with its athletes.
Boxing makes violence look cool. The money and fame a few champion boxers get for hitting people sends the wrong message to young people. It isn’t just the fights themselves which are the problem. Fighting often breaks out at publicity events, or even in the audience.		Boxing isn’t just about a few minutes of violent activity. It is also about thousands of hours of hard training and self-discipline – that’s not a bad message to send to young people. Sports such as pro-wrestling, where violence is staged like a show are much more dangerous. At least in boxing it is obvious that getting hit hurts and does lasting damage. In any case, most boxing is on television too late at night to have much effect on young children.
There is no reason to think that if boxing was banned it would continue “underground”. Cockfighting and badger baiting were banned and they are almost unheard of. If caught, those breaking the law by organising or watching a boxing match could be punished severely. This will scare off others from trying to stage fights in future. Without television coverage there will be no money left in boxing. It is not as if boxers have nothing else to do. With their athletic talents they could make it in other sports instead.		Making boxing illegal would just drive it “underground”. It would still go on, in remote barns and cellars, because men would still want to fight and others would still be prepared to pay to see them. Banning drugs or underage drinking hasn’t stopped people from doing those things. Once boxing is underground, it cannot be regulated and fights will become much more dangerous. Bare fists may be used rather than gloves, fights may go on until one boxer is knocked out, and there will be no medical support when injuries do come about. Boxing is much safer when it is legal but regulated.

http://www.idebate.org/debatabase/topic_print.php?topicID=473

1. Select, via pre writing, a general topic;
   1. Do a broad overview of the topic and get your gut reaction on the topic using 5W1H and freewriting;
2. Formulate a research question;
   1. Hone down your research question, making it more specific;
3. Perform a preliminary search in the library or Internet;
   1. Investigate the material even further, identifying which articles are useful for pro and con positions;
   2. Practice summarizing and providing opinions on articles;
4. Begin drafting your paper.

Refining your Question:

1. Does your question encourage enough “clash?” Does it allow for more than just a one-sided opinion?
2. Is this question interesting to you and your readers?
   1. How can you make this question specific enough to make your research fruitful?

Sample: TOO BROAD: What can be done at airports to improve security?

DOES ORAL ARGUMENT REALLY MATTER?

A BAKER’S DOZEN: THIRTEEN THINGS YOU SHOULD BE PREPARED FOR IN ORAL ARGUMENT

http://www.dodsonparker.com/publications/Tips%20for%20Becoming%20a%20Better%20Appellate%20Advocate-%20The%20Oral%20Argument.pdf

For your exam you will write an argumentative essay. The goal of such an essay is to present your readers with a new, original way of looking at a concept and to try and convince your readers that your assertion (opinion, theory, hypothesis) is correct or more truthful than others.

The  argumentative essay

For your exam you will write an argumentative essay. The goal of such an essay is to present your readers with a new, original way of looking at a concept and to try and convince your readers that your assertion (opinion, theory, hypothesis) is correct or more truthful than others.

How do I start?

You do NOT start by writing sentences!

* Brainstorming the topic

The first step towards writing a good essay is to brainstorm about the given topic. You do NOT start by writing sentences. But you DO start with a brainstorming session in which you write down everything concerning the topic that pops into your mind. Don’t worry that you might not use all of it. Take at least five minutes for your brainstorming.

* Organizing your thoughts – step 1

The next step is to decide which of the ideas you have jotted down during your brainstorming session you want to use. This is best done by organizing them into groups. For instance, if your topic is that living in the country is better than living in a city, you might order your ideas the following way:

Country                                                                 City

* Organizing your thoughts – step 2

Now that you have some idea of the arguments that you will use in your essay, put them in a logical order. It is usually best to have the pros immediately followed by the cons. Place pros that are similar together. They may make up one paragraph later.

Before you start to write any sentences, let’s take a look at the structure of an essay and at the language you should use writing an essay.

Structure

Your essay should have four main parts:

1. Title
2. Introduction/thesis paragraph
3. Body paragraphs
4. Concluding paragraph

Title

The title should not be boring, but make people curious. You can either decide on a suitable title for your essay beforehand, or once you’ve finished writing. Most people find it best to come up with a title after they’ve written their essay.

Introduction/thesis paragraph

• The introduction should make the reader want to read on, so explain why this topic is so interesting.
• In the introduction you should state very clearly the topic, your perspective and/or point of view concerning the topic and the scope of the treatment; i.e. what aspect of your potentially enormous topic are you going to discuss.
• The thesis statement is traditionally made in the final sentence of the introductory paragraph. The thesis statement notifies your reader of your original idea regarding the topic. It should not be boring, obvious or vague. A thesis statement must be controversial and arguable; it should be possible for someone to come up with a reasonable argument contradicting your own.

Do not write phrases such as: “The purpose of this paper is …”, “In this paper I will attempt to …” or “This paper is about …”. Those are boring.

Body paragraphs

You develop your argument in the body paragraphs of your paper. Usually there are at least three body paragraphs between your thesis paragraph and the conclusion. Make sure you establish flow from paragraph to paragraph.

• Each paragraph should begin with a topic sentence that develops the thesis statement. It should introduce new information that confirms or complicates the argument that you have stated in your first paragraph.
• Within the paragraph you should use specific evidence/examples to support the idea stated in your topic sentence. Analysing sentences explain why this evidence supports the argument you are making.
• Acknowledge alternatives or contrasting opinions.
• A paragraph should not explore two separate ideas unless it explicitly tells why they are related to each other.
• The ideas in your body paragraphs should come in a logical sequence. This sequence can explain, complicate or develop the idea of the topic sentence.
• Transitional sentences, clauses, or words at the beginning of paragraph connect one idea to the next. They help your reader to understand the way that you are developing your main idea. Common transitional phrases are ‘furthermore’, ‘in contrast’, ‘for example’, ‘as a result’, and ‘soon after’.
• Continually prove your point of view throughout the essay
  • Don’t drift or leave the focus of the essay
  • Don’t lapse into summary in developing paragraphs–wait until its time, at the conclusion

Concluding paragraph
Your concluding paragraph should remind your reader about the most important aspects of your essay. You can do this by creatively restating the main idea(s) of your essay. It should also leave your reader even more interested in the topic, so you might want to finish by addressing the reader directly with a question or a call for action.

Register

Essays are supposed to be formal, so:

• Do not use colloquial expressions. Use “proper” English.
• Do not use abbreviations such as: “It’s”, “They’ve” etcetera.
• Do not use “I think”, “I believe”, “Personally, I”, “I want to” or such phrases. Write objectively, using impersonal phrases such as: “It is obvious that …”, “We can all see why …” or “Anyone will agree that …”. Remember that the passive voice is a handy instrument to avoid becoming too personal.

Also remember:

• Sentences should be clear, logical and to the point.
• Sentences should flow consistently, except in places you wish to stop the reader for emphasis.
• Is the tone consistent throughout the paragraph?
• Avoid sentence fragments.
• Do you over-use any words?  Would synonyms add interest?
• Are vivid/descriptive words used? Do they fit into the flow or do they make the reader pause?  If pause, is it appropriate and/or effective?
• Verbs:  Action/active verbs are more precise or descriptive. (Did she say she won the promotion, or did she whisper, stress, or confide it?)

* Writing your first draft

Your first draft is meant to help you to put everything in its place. Don’t worry about writing neatly or about spelling mistakes at this point. Use lots of paper and leave spaces between the paragraphs. This will allow you to use arrows to move the paragraphs around later on. Write complete sentences. If you can use connecting words between the paragraphs to show how they relate to each other, do so. If you find this too difficult at this point you can do so later.

* Your second/third/fourth draft

When you have finished (part of) your first draft you go over it again. Reorganize your paragraphs to make their order more logical. Reorganize the sentences within your paragraphs to make your text more logical and easier to read. Cross out superfluous bits and use arrow to relocate parts of text. Use transitional phrases to link the paragraphs together logically. Go over your text several times to improve it, but make sure you leave enough time to write your final version. If you still haven’t decided on a title, do so now.

* Your final version

When you have gone over your draft version several times and are happy with it, or at least as happy as you can be within the time allowed for writing the essay, write your final version. Leave 1 inch wide margins left and right. Write neatly.

Useful vocabulary

Transitional phrases/linking words:

Source: http://www.intrazc.nl/vakken/engels/handleiding%20voor%20het%20schrijven%20van%20een%20essay%20in%20het%20engels.doc

Argumentative Essay Outline: Romeo and Juliet

Hello,
I’d be very grateful if someone could proofread the below essay on whether women should or should not be allowed to enter combat.
many thanks in advance
Lenka

Women in combat: should women be fighting in the front line?

Women and war have always been considered to have little in common. As the gentle sex, women are traditionally associated with caring and with creating life rather than with its destroying. And even though women today do have the opportunity to enter the army, they are not officially allowed to enter combat and fight alongside their male counterparts. Indeed, who would put a gun into the hands of such a tender and vulnerable being as a woman?

Certainly, there are a number of arguments in favour of women being excluded from front line fighting. The first, and probably the most obvious, argument is that, for the most part, they lack the body strength that is necessary to perform in combat. Because of this, they would have difficulties in handling the extremely heavy military equipment used on the field; the manipulation with a gun would take them longer, which would create an opportunity for the enemy to shoot first. Also, they would have problems when a need arises to carry the body of a wounded comrade off the battlefield.

The second argument is that women do not possess the necessary mental strength and therefore they would not be able to cope with the mental and emotional stress involved. Women are generally considered to be very gentle, caring and compassionate. Because of these personality traits, they would have problems handling the atmosphere of fear and hostility that is inevitably generated on the battlefield. Thus, in the light of these arguments, it may seem to be a logical conclusion that women should not be allowed to fight in the front line.

However, it is crucial to note that the above arguments are based on the traditional image of a woman and are general statements rather than ultimate facts; in other words, they may not be true for every woman. While most women lack the necessary physical strength, some may be strong enough to perform in combat situations and they may even be able to meet the male fitness requirements.

Likewise, it may be argued that the ability to cope with stress is a characteristic that varies between individuals, regardless of gender. In addition, it is important to realize that being in combat is an extremely difficult time for every human being, whether it is a man or a woman. Therefore, it would not be correct to generally exclude women from front line fighting on account of characteristics that, in reality, are possessed by both men and women, though to a different extent.

Considering all the arguments, it can be seen that women should be allowed to enter combat; it would be wrong to keep them from combat situations because of the traditional image they are associated with. Rather, they should be judged on the basis of their abilities and personal characteristics.

Re: WOMEN IN COMBAT? (argumentative essay) by Raymott

————

Originally Posted by Dipsik

Hello,
Women in combat: should women be fighting in the front line?

Considering all the arguments, it can be seen that women should be allowed to enter combat; it would be wrong to keep them from combat situations because of the traditional image they are associated with. Rather, they should be judged on the basis of their abilities and personal characteristics.

* You could point to the very high rate of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (or battle fatigue, or shell-shock) among male veterans to exemplify this.
Another reason that you haven’t mentioned is that it is women who get pregnant. If 90% of the male population is wiped out, this is not as bad for the species as if 90% of the females are. This is the rationale for “Women and children first”.

This is an excellent essay. One small criticism. In this type of essay, you should introduce your argument in the introductory paragraph. The reader should not have to wait until the end to learn what you believe about the topic. You could fix this easily by adding a short sentence such as “I believe that women should be given a chance at this role”.

————

http://www.usingenglish.com/forum/editing-writing-topics/111128-women-combat-argumentative-essay.html

Shared by: junglesister

One controversial topic among high school students today is the subject of school uniforms.  The question is whether the uniforms truly help the student body.  There are arguments for both sides of the issue.  The arguments for the issue are just as strong as those against the issue.  There are two main points surrounding school uniforms, performance in schools and, uniformity.

The arguments for school uniforms argue that school uniforms decrease violence in the schools.  People who argue this side of the issue state that when the students of the school wear school uniforms, that the number of infractions on the rules are decreased.  The arguments against the issue argue that there are other programs that the schools can undertake that produce the same effect with out the school uniforms.  There is also the argument that by putting students in a uniform, the students are suppressed of their individual expression.  Over all the argument of decreased violence is a weak argument to reinforce school uniforms.

Another argument for school uniforms is that the uniforms improve the academic performance of the students.  Arguments state that when the violence of the school is under control that the students are able to concentrate.  The arguments also state that when the students are dressed alike in uniforms that the students are not distracted by the different clothes that the students wear when they do not wear the uniforms.  Arguments against the issue argue that at Phoenix Prep School after 2 ½ years of the students wearing uniforms that the academic scores of the students are still in the 30th percentile.  There are also the arguments that uniforms change the way teachers and other adults perceive the students who wear them.  Also there is the argument that uniforms do not rule out the backpacks, jewelry and other accessories that also easily distract the students form their work.  This issue does not seem to help either side of the school uniform issue.

When President Clinton proposed the issue of school uniforms in his 1996 State of the Union Address, he proposed that the school uniforms would fight the gangs that are in the schools and that they would prevent intruders on campus.  Since, this issue has been a major argument when arguing for the issue.  Arguments state that the uniforms help to spot intruders when they are on campus.  They also state that the uniforms fight the gangs that are in the schools.  The arguments against the issue argue that gangs are still able to communicate through hand signals, tattoos, and slang.  The uniforms will not prevent the student form becoming involved in the gangs outside of the schools, and the students then in the gangs will bring those gangs to the school, despite the use of school uniforms.  Arguments against the issue also argue that school uniforms will not prevent intruders from entering the campus for the intruders will simply wear the uniform that the students wear, making the intruders harder to spot on the campus.  President Clinton did not think about either of these arguments when proposing the school uniforms.

Another argument that is for the school uniforms is that the uniforms help to keep the poor students in the school from being harassed by the richer students in the school.  The arguments state that when the students all buy the same clothing, bought from the same store that you are unable to tell who is rich and who is poor.  However the arguments against the issue state that the uniforms do not prevent the students from having their bikes, backpacks, jewelry, and other accessories that can easily differentiate between the two classes of students.  The students would still harass the poor students.  This issue often leads into another issue, cost.

The arguments for the issue often argue that school uniforms cost less that clothing that a family buy for their students.  This argument often assumes that the families of the students buy all name brand clothing and this is often not the case.  This issue also requires that the students have two different sets of clothing.  One is the uniform for school, and the other is the clothing that the student wears to the events that the student attends to when they are not in school.  This in turn is more expensive then allowing the student to wear their regular clothing to school rather than forcing them to wear the school uniform.

Another issue that arguments for the issue use is that the uniforms make it easier to dress in the morning.  Even though this may be true the arguments against the issue argue that the uniforms ban diversity by requiring the students to wear the exact same thing 180 days a year.  The arguments against the issue also state that the uniforms repress the two privileges that all students have under a regular dress code: informality and diversity.  The arguments against the issue also argue that the school uniforms do not allow the students to dress to their personality and their moods for that day.  There are also the arguments that the uniforms prepare the students for their adult life.

The arguments for the issue state that the school uniforms prepare the students for their adult life by getting the students used to wearing uniform.  The arguments against the issue argue that most adults do not wear a uniform.  The arguments also argue that the more educated a person is the less likely it is that that person will have to wear a uniform for their occupation, or later in life.  And again, the uniforms does not allow the student to dress to their personality, mood, or the activity for the day as most adults do when deciding what to wear when dressing.

President John F. Kennedy once stated, “We must make the world safe for diversity.”  School uniforms repress the diversity of the students.  School uniforms repress the students from expressing their personality.  The original question was whether school uniforms help the student body or not.  The arguments for the issue state that the uniforms do help the student body by decreasing the violence, and increasing the performance in the schools.  The arguments against the issue state that the uniforms are not for the good of the student body, that they suppress the individuality and diversity of the students.  Either way the issue of school uniforms is still a controversial subject.

Works Cited

“The “halo effect” of school uniforms”.  http://www.aft.org/parentpage/discipline/halo.html

Klahr, Gary Peter. “The dangers of the school uniform movement”. http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Mezzanine/1105/uniforms.html

“The legality of school uniforms”. http://www.optionality.net/mag/oct98a.html

Controversial topic among high school students today subject school uniforms question whether uniforms truly help student body there arguments both sides issue arguments issue just strong those against issue there main points surrounding school uniforms performance schools uniformity arguments argue that decrease violence schools people argue this side state that when students wear that number infractions rules decreased against argue there other programs schools undertake produce same effect with also argument putting students uniform suppressed their individual expression over argument decreased violence weak argument reinforce another improve academic performance state when violence under control able concentrate also state when dressed alike distracted different clothes wear they wear against phoenix prep after years wearing academic scores still percentile also change teachers other adults perceive them rule backpacks jewelry other accessories easily distract form their work this does seem help either side uniform president clinton proposed union address proposed would fight gangs they would prevent intruders campus since this been major arguing help spot intruders they campus fight gangs gangs still able communicate through hand signals tattoos slang will prevent student form becoming involved outside then will bring those despite will prevent intruders from entering campus simply uniform making harder spot president clinton think about either these proposing another keep poor from being harassed richer same clothing bought from same store unable tell rich poor however having their bikes backpacks jewelry accessories easily differentiate between classes would still harass poor often leads into another cost often cost less clothing family often assumes families name brand clothing case requires have different sets student wears events attends turn more expensive then allowing regular rather than forcing them make easier dress morning even though true diversity requiring exact thing days year repress privileges have under regular dress code informality diversity allow dress personality moods prepare adult life prepare adult life getting used wearing most adults more educated person less likely person have occupation later life again does allow personality mood activity most adults deciding what dressing president john kennedy once stated must make world safe diversity repress repress expressing personality original question whether body body decreasing increasing performance good suppress individuality either controversial subject works cited halo effect http parentpage discipline halo html klahr gary peter dangers movement http geocities sunsetstrip mezzanine html legality http optionality htmlEssay, essays, termpaper, term paper, termpapers, term papers, book reports, study, college, thesis, dessertation, test answers, free research, book research, study help, download essay, download term papers.

www.docstoc.com/docs/8860704/School-Uniforms-Arguments