Rebuttal argument: Cliques are formed by clothes
Despite the fact that the con team insists that cliques are formed by physical characteristics, such as height, weight, hair color, and ethnicity, my teammates and I disagree. I support this due to three simple reasons:
▪ It is common sense that, obviously, children who wear $50 Hollister are not going to want to hang out with who wear $10 clothes.
▪ If you think about what actually defines the gang or the clique, it will always narrow down to clothing
My first point is that, it’s common knowledge that the “rich, popular, Hollister/Abercrombie-wearing jock” gang is not going to want to hang out with the “less fortunate, ridiculed, outcast” gang that wears $10 clothes. Let’s call them Group A and Group B. So, why is it that Group A is supposedly “cooler” than Group B?
If you think about it, what defines these gangs? This is my second point. Is it that they are all tall or short? Is it they are all 90 pounds? Is it that they are all blonds or brunettes? Are they always all Asian, Caucasian, or Hispanic, or African-American? No, it’s pretty evident, but they wear the same type of clothing. In fact, according to www.massgeneral.org, a health site, it says, “One can usually identify clique members by the way they dress. Throughout the U.S., these dress codes are remarkably similar.” Spiralcat.co says, “Everyone in the clique wears pretty much the same fashion and they also do pretty much the same thing.” Yet another site, seattlepi.nwsource.com a student named Samantha “blames the pressure created by media images of the perfect body, and the cool clothes.”
Therefore, I argue that cliques are actually formed by clothes, and uniforms will help overcome this problem, especially between peers, in American schools.