# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Newsela is an Instructional Content Platform that supercharges reading engagement and learning in every subject.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Newsela | Instructional Content Platform

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Newsela is an Instructional Content Platform that supercharges reading engagement and learning in every subject.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
History of School Uniforms
Traditionally favored by private and parochial institutions, school uniforms are being adopted by US public schools in increasing numbers. According to a 2020 report, the percentage of public schools that required school uniforms jumped from 12% in the 1999-2000 school year to 20% in the 2017-18 school year. School uniforms were most frequently required by elementary schools (23%), followed by middle (18%), and high schools (10%).

The first recorded use of standardized dress in education may have been in England in 1222, when the Archbishop of Canterbury mandated that students wear a robe-like outfit called the " cappa clausa." The origin of the modern school uniform can be traced to 16th Century England, when the impoverished "charity children" attending the Christ's Hospital boarding school wore blue cloaks reminiscent of the cassocks worn by clergy, along with yellow stockings. As of Sep. 2014, students at Christ's Hospital were still wearing the same uniform, and according to the school it is the oldest school uniform still in use. When Christ's Hospital surveyed its students in 2011, 95% voted to keep the traditional uniforms. Read more history...

Pro & Con Arguments

Pro 1

School uniforms deter crime and increase student safety.

In Long Beach, California, after two years of a district-wide K-8 mandatory uniform policy, reports of assault and battery in the district's schools decreased by 34%, assault with a deadly weapon dropped by 50%, fighting incidents went down by 51%, sex offenses were cut by 74%, robbery dropped by 65%, possession of weapons (or weapon "look-alikes") decreased by 52%, possession of drugs went down by 69%, and vandalism was lowered by 18%.

And, school uniforms prevent the display of gang colors and insignia, reducing gang activity and pressure to join on school property. The U.S. Department of Education's Manual on School Uniforms stated that uniform policies can "prevent gang members from wearing gang colors and insignia at school" in order to "encourage a safe environment." Educators in the Long Beach Unified School District have speculated that the sharp reduction in crime following the introduction of school uniforms was a result of gang conflicts being curbed. Osceola County, Florida School Board member Jay Wheeler reports that the county's schools had a 46% drop in gang activity after their first full school year with a mandatory K-12 uniform policy. Wheeler explains that "clothing is integral to gang culture... Imagine a U.S. Armed Forces recruiter out of uniform trying to recruit new soldiers; the success rate goes down. The same applies to gang recruitment." [35] [37] [67]
Read More

Pro 2

School uniforms keep students focused on their education, not their clothes.

Wearing uniforms also enhances school pride, unity, and community spirit, which can boost interest in education. A study of over 1,000 Texas middle school students found that students in uniform "reported significantly more positive perceptions of belonging in their school community than reported by students in the standard dress group." Christopher P. Clouet, former Superintendent of the New London Public Schools in Connecticut, stated that "the wearing of uniforms contributes to school pride." Arnold Goldstein, PhD, head of the Center for Research on Aggression at Syracuse University, points out that uniforms help troubled students feel they have the support of a community: "There is a sense of belonging." Further, "teachers perceived an increase in the level of respect, caring, and trust... throughout the school" and "students are made to feel 'important' and as if they are a part of a team by wearing a uniform," according to a peer-reviewed study.

Plus, school uniforms can improve attendance and discipline. A study by researchers at the University of Houston found that the average absence rate for girls in middle and high school decreased by 7% after the introduction of uniforms, and behavioral problems lessened in severity. School uniforms make getting ready for school easier, which can improve punctuality.
When uniforms are mandatory, parents and students do not spend time choosing appropriate outfits for the school day. According to a national survey, over 90% of US school leaders believe school uniform or formal dress code policies "eliminate wardrobe battles with kids," make it "easier to get kids ready in the morning," and create a "time saving in the morning." Tracey Marinelli, Superintendent of the Lyndhurst School District in New Jersey, credits the district's uniform policy for reducing the number of students running late. Lyndhurst student Mike Morreale agrees, stating that "it's so much easier to dress than having to search for clothes and find out that something doesn't match." A Youngstown State University study of secondary schools in Ohio's eight largest school districts found that school uniform policies improve rates of attendance, graduation, and suspension.
Read More

Pro 3

Students' legal right to free expression remains intact with mandatory school uniforms.

Besides, students can still express their individuality in school uniforms by introducing variations and adding accessories. Junior high school student Amelia Jimenez wrote in her op-ed for the Pennsylvania Patriot-News that "contrary to popular belief, uniforms do not stop students from being themselves. Uniforms do not silence voices. Students can wear a variety of expressive items, such as buttons or jewlery." Students can inject their personal style into their daily look with hairstyles, nail polish, and colorful accessories such as bags, scarfs, and fun socks. 54% of eighth-graders said they could still express their individuality while wearing school uniforms.

Further, students dressed in uniform are better perceived by teachers and peers. A 1994 peer-reviewed study found that students in uniform were perceived by teachers and fellow students as being more academically proficient than students in regular clothes. The study also found that students in uniform were perceived by peers and teachers as having higher academic potential, and perceived by peers as being better behaved. Students need to learn a balance between free expression and working within the confines of expectations.
Read More

Con 1

School uniforms do not stop bullying and can actually increase violent attacks.

Further, a peer-reviewed study found that "school uniforms increased the average number of assaults by about 14 [per year] in the most violent schools." A Texas Southern University study found that school discipline incidents rose by about 12% after the introduction of uniforms. And, according to the Miami-Dade County Public Schools Office of Education Evaluation and Management, fights in middle schools nearly doubled within one year of introducing mandatory uniforms.
Read More

Con 2

School uniforms do not improve attendance, academic preparedness, or exam results.

The problems arise because focusing on uniforms takes attention away from finding genuine solutions to problems in education. Spending time and effort implementing uniform policies detracts from more effective efforts to reduce crime in schools and boost student performance. More substantive improvements to public education could be achieved with smaller class sizes, tightened security, increased parental involvement, improved facilities, and other measures. Tom Houlihan, former Superintendent of Schools in Oxford, North Carolina, stated that school uniforms "are a distraction from focusing on systematic and fundamental transformation to improve our schools."

That uniform policies are a distraction is most evident when we realize that the push for school uniforms is driven by commercial interests rather than educational ones. Americans spend around $1 billion on school uniforms every year. Retailer J.C. Penney Co. says school uniforms are "a huge, important business for us." In one year alone, uniform company Lands' End spent $3 million on marketing efforts directed at public schools and districts. Multiple studies used to promote the effectiveness of uniforms were partly funded by Lands' End, and at least one of those studies is "so wholly flawed as to render itself useless," according to David L. Brunsma. Reuters reported that retailers were "sensing their opportunity... stepping up competition in the uniform aisles and online. Walmart has set up 'uniform shops' or temporary boutiques within some stores."

The commercialization of school uniforms in public schools also undermines the promise of a free education by imposing an extra expense on families. Parents already pay taxes, and they still need to buy regular clothes for their children to wear when they're out of school and for dress-down days. The Children's Commission on Poverty (UK) found that over "95% of parents on low incomes reported difficulties in meeting school-related costs," including uniforms, despite their children attending tuition-free schools. Anderson, Indiana, parents Laura and Scott Bell argued against their children's school uniform policy, saying the $641 for their children's uniforms broke the guarantee of a free public education. In York County, Pennsylvania, a local NBC affiliate reported that some children were missing class because their families couldn't afford to purchase the required uniforms. And, all of that is before the uniform policies themselves are examined. Most operate like dress codes and are classist, racist, and sexist.
Read More

Con 3

School uniforms restrict students' freedom of expression.

Uniforms take away the ability to use clothing as means of expressing support for social causes. Students at Friendly High School in Prince George's County, MD, were not allowed to wear pink shirts to support Breast Cancer Awareness Month and 75 students received suspensions for breaking the school's uniform restrictions. Removing these choices can delay the transition into adulthood. Adults make their own clothing choices and have the freedom to express themselves through their appearance. Denying children and teenagers the opportunity to make those choices may make them ill-prepared for the adult world. Adolescents see clothing choices as a means of identification, and seeking an identity is one of the critical stages of adolescence, according to the late developmental psychologist Erik Erikson.

When students have to wear the same outfits, rather than being allowed to select clothes that suit their body types, they can suffer embarrassment at school. Child and teen development specialist Robyn Silverman says that students, especially girls, tend to compare how each other looks in their uniforms: "As a body image expert, I hear from students all the time that they feel it allows for a lot of comparison... So if you have a body that's a plus-size body, a curvier body, a very tall body, a very short body, those girls often feel that they don't look their best." A study by researchers at Arizona State University found that "students from schools without uniforms reported higher self-perception scores than students from schools with uniform policies." Some students also find uniforms less comfortable than their regular clothes, which may not be conducive to learning.
Read More

Did You Know?

1. The first school district in the United States to require all K-8 students to wear uniforms was Long Beach, CA, in Jan. 1994.

2. Americans spend around $1 billion per year on school uniforms.

3. Students at Eton, one of England's most prestigious schools, were required to wear black top hats and tails on and off campus until 1972.

4. US schools with a minority student population of 50% or more are four times as likely to require uniforms than schools with a minority population of 20-49%, and 24 times more likely than schools with minority populations of 5%-19%.

5. A government agency in Sweden declared that mandatory school uniforms were a human rights violation, stating that students should decide their dress and appearance as "a matter of the individual's freedom and integrity."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
School Uniforms Pros and Cons - 13 Arguments For and Against

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Proponents say uniforms may increase student safety. Opponents say uniforms restrict expression. Explore both sides of the debate.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Newsela is an Instructional Content Platform that supercharges reading engagement and learning in every subject.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Animal Testing | Pros & Cons | ProCon.org

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Proponents say animal testing contributes to life-saving cures and treatments. Opponents say animal testing is cruel and inhumane.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Americans eat an average of 58 pounds of beef, 96 pounds of chicken, and 52 pounds of pork, per person, per year, according to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). Vegetarians, about 5% of the US adult population, do not eat meat (including poultry and seafood). The percentage of Americans who identify as vegetarian has remained steady for two decades. 11% of those who identify as liberal follow a vegetarian diet, compared to 2% of conservatives.

Many proponents of vegetarianism say that eating meat harms health, wastes resources, and creates pollution. They often argue that killing animals for food is cruel and unethical since non-animal food sources are plentiful.

Many opponents of a vegetarian diet say that meat consumption is healthful and humane, and that producing vegetables causes many of the same environmental problems as producing meat. They also argue that humans have been eating and enjoying meat for 2.3 million years. Read more background...

Pro & Con Arguments

Pro 1

It is cruel and unethical to kill animals for food when vegetarian options are available, especially because raising animals in confinement for slaughter is cruel, and many animals in the United States are not slaughtered humanely.

Animals are sentient beings that have emotions and social connections. Scientific studies show that cattle, pigs, chickens, and all warm-blooded animals can experience stress, pain, and fear. In 2017, the United States slaughtered a total of 170.5 million animals for food, including 33.7 million cows, 9.2 million chickens, 124.5 million pigs, and 2.4 million sheep. These animals should not have to die painfully and fearfully to satisfy an unnecessary dietary preference.
Read More

Pro 2

A vegetarian diet is more healthful than a carnivorous diet.

According to the USDA and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, meat is not an essential part of a healthy diet. Studies have linked heme iron found in red meat with an increased risk of colorectal, stomach, and esophageal cancers. Vegetarian sources of iron like leafy greens and beans contain non-heme iron.

A vegetarian diet reduces overuse of antibiotics. Overuse of antibiotics in CAFOs causes antibiotic resistant bacteria to develop, which may endanger human health.
Read More

Pro 3

A vegetarian diet is better for the environment.
Read More

Pro 4

Eating fish is not more ethical, environmentally sound, or healthful than eating other animal protein sources.
Read More

Pro 5

A vegetarian diet lowers risk of diseases.

A vegetarian diet reduces the chances of developing kidney stones and gallstones. Diets high in animal protein cause the body to excrete calcium, oxalate, and uric acid-the main components of kidney stones and gallstones.
Read More

Pro 7

Human anatomy has evolved to support a primarily vegetarian diet.

Carnivores have large mouths with pointed teeth, short intestines (three to six times body length), and their livers can detoxify the excess vitamin A absorbed from meat. Human teeth are short and flat, we have long intestines (10-11 times body length), and our livers cannot detoxify excess vitamin A.
Read More

Con 1

Eating meat is natural, not cruel or unethical.
Read More

Con 2

Vegetarian diets are not necessarily better for the environment.

Almost 100 million acres of farmland in the Corn Belt (about a third of the total farmland in the area) has lost all topsoil due to erosion, reducing corn and soybean yields by 6%, which is an almost $6 billion loss for farmers. The erosion also pollutes nearby waterways.

Vegetarian diets can cause the death of animals too. According to a 2003 study by Steven Davis at Oregon State University, about six animals per acre, or 52-77% of the animals (such as birds, mice, and rabbits) that live in agricultural crop fields, are killed during harvest.

Further, it is not necessary to become vegetarian to lower our environmental footprint. Some vegetarians eat an unhealthy diet, drive SUVs, and consume eggs and dairy products produced at factory farms (CAFOs). Some meat eaters use solar panels, ride bikes, grow their own vegetables, and eat free-range organic meat. All of a person's actions make a difference-not just a single act such as eating meat.
Read More

Con 3

Eating meat is part of a healthful diet.

Meat is the most convenient protein source available. In one serving, meat provides all the essential amino acids (the building blocks of protein), as well as essential nutrients such as iron, zinc, and B vitamins. Most plant foods do not provide adequate levels of all the essential amino acids in a single serving.
Read More

Con 4

A diet that includes meat does not raise risk of disease.

Lean red meat, eaten in moderation, can be a healthful part of a balanced diet. According to researchers at the British Nutrition Foundation, "there is no evidence" that moderate consumption of unprocessed lean red meat has any negative health effects.
Read More

Con 5

A diet that includes fish provides the body with essential omega-3 fatty acids.

Fish are a powerful source of the omega-3 fatty acids EPA and DHA which are important for brain function, lowering triglycerides, and reducing the risk of death from heart attacks and strokes.

Although the omega-3 fatty acid ALA can be found in plant oils, the ALA must first be converted by the body into the essential EPA and DHA. The process is inefficient and may not provide the same cardiovascular benefits as eating fish.
Read More

Con 6

Vegetarians do not live longer.

This myth stems from the fact that vegetarians tend to be more health conscious overall, eating a more balanced diet, exercising more, and smoking less than the general population.

When a study from the German Cancer Research Center compared health conscious meat eaters with vegetarians, there was no difference in overall mortality rates.
Read More

Con 7

Humans are omnivores and have evolved to consume even more meat.

Evidence shows our taste buds evolved to crave meat's savory flavor.
Read More

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Proponents of vegetarianism say it is cruel and unethical to kill animals for food. Opponents say humans are natural omnivores.

# data[].attributes.headline
Issue Overview: Video Games and Violence

# data[].attributes.subject
Issue Overview: Video Games and Violence

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Newsela | Instructional Content Platform

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Newsela is an Instructional Content Platform that supercharges reading engagement and learning in every subject.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Do Video Games Cause Violence? 9 Pros and Cons

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Proponents say playing violent video games causes more aggression. Opponents say the games are a convenient scapegoat for real-life violence.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Newsela | Instructional Content Platform

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Newsela is an Instructional Content Platform that supercharges reading engagement and learning in every subject.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Newsela | Pit bulls are flooding Chicago animal shelters

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The dogs, known for their broad heads and jaws, make up 40 percent of the dogs in shelters, and about two-thirds of the dogs that get put down because they don't get adopted.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Breed-specific legislation (BSL) is a "blanket term for laws that regulate or ban certain dog breeds in an effort to decrease dog attacks on humans and other animals," according to the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA). The laws are also called pit bull bans and breed-discriminatory laws.

The legislation frequently covers any dog deemed a "pit bull," which can include American Pit Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, Staffordshire Bull Terriers, English Bull Terriers, and pit bull mixes, though any dog that resembles a pit bull or pit bull mix can be included in the bans. Other dogs are also sometimes regulated, including American Bulldogs, Rottweilers, Mastiffs, Dalmatians, Chow Chows, German Shepherds, and Doberman Pinschers, as well as mixes of these breeds or, again, dogs that simply resemble the restricted breeds.

The term "pit bull" refers to a dog with certain characteristics, rather than a specific breed. Generally, the dogs have broad heads and muscular bodies. Pit bulls are targeted because of their history in dog fighting.

Dog fighting dates to at least 43 CE, when the Romans invaded Britain, and both sides brought fighting dogs to the war. The Romans believed the British to have better-trained fighting dogs and began importing (and later exporting) the dogs for war and entertainment wherein the dogs were made to fight against wild animals, including elephants. From the 12th century until the 19th century, dogs were used for baiting chained bears and bulls. In 1835, England outlawed baiting, which then increased the popularity of dog-on-dog fights.

Fighting dogs arrived in the United States in 1817, whereupon Americans crossbred several breeds to create the American Pit Bull. The United Kennel Club endorsed the fights and provided referees. Dog fighting was legal in most US states until the 1860s, and it was not completely outlawed in all states until 1976. Today, dog fighting is a felony offense in all 50 states, though the fights thrive in illegal underground venues.

More than 700 American cities in 29 states have breed-specific legislation, while 20 states do not allow breed-specific legislation, and one allows no new legislation after 1990, as of Apr. 1, 2020.

England and Wales have banned the XL Bully, a breed of pit bull. Scotland banned the breed after a spate of the dogs were abandoned over the country's border after the implementation of the English and Welsh law. The breed, the largest of the American Bully dogs, was involved in an outbreak of attacks in the United Kingdom, with at least six of ten human deaths attributable to the XL Bully. Under the ban, existing XL Bullies must be leashed and muzzled in public as of Dec 31, 2023, and must have exemption certificates by Jan. 31, 2024, which require insurance, the dog to be microchipped, and a fee of almost $118 (£92.40). The dogs must also be spayed or neutered. Selling, buying, gifting, or otherwise exchanging the breed is now illegal. The U.K. bans several other dogs: American pit bull terrier, Japanese tosa, Dogo Argentino, and Fila Brazileiro.

Should Breed-Specific Legislation ("Pit Bull Bans") Be Enacted?

Pro 1

BSL makes communities safer.

One goal of BSL is to prevent dog attacks on humans, dogs, and other animals before they happen.

According to DogsBite.org, enacting BSL "regulate[s] a small group of breeds that have a genetic propensity to attack and inflict severe, disfiguring injuries so that first attacks by these breeds can be averted. First attacks by pit bulls, for instance, almost always result in severe injury. In some cases, the first bite by a pit bull or [R]ottweiler is fatal."

Data collected by DogsBite.org shows at least 433 deaths due to dog bites between Jan. 1, 2005 to Dec. 31, 2017. Of those deaths, 284 were attributed to pit bulls, 45 to Rottweilers, 20 to German Shepherds, 15 to American Bulldogs, and 14 to Mastiffs, all frequently banned breeds.

Prior to BSL enactment in Prince George's County, Maryland, there were 853 dog bites reported (108 from pit bulls) in 1996. 14 years into the ban (2010), overall dog bites had decreased 43% and pit bull bites were down 35%.

In Pawtucket, Rhode Island, BSL was overturned by a judge in 2013, resulting in a tenfold increase in pit bull attacks between 2013 and 2019.
Read More

Pro 2

BSL is a humane way to discourage pit bull breeding and fighting.

An estimated 80% of all dogs are spayed or neutered. However, only about 20% of pit bulls are sterilized. And only about 38% of animal shelter admissions are pit bulls, but the dogs account for 63% of shelter euthanizations.

Bans of pit bulls are an effective way to prevent more pit bulls from being bred and, thus, more pit bulls from being confiscated and killed in shelters, not to mention preventing the dogs from being tortured in fighting rings.

Pit bulls are more likely to be confiscated or surrendered to a shelter because they are disproportionately selectively bred for fighting, and, therefore, more likely to injure or kill a human, another dog, or other animals.

Further, pit bull fighting rings are often tied to other illegal activities, including drug possession and distribution, gun distribution, assault, and murder.

BSL eliminates or lessens these problems at the root by preventing pit bulls from being bred in the first place, much less allowing the dogs to be trained, abused, or neglected into aggressive behavior.
Read More

Pro 3

Pit bulls and some other dogs are genetically dangerous.

As Daphna Nachminovitch, Senior Vice President of Cruelty Investigations for PETA, explained, "Pit bulls are a breed-specific problem, so it seems reasonable to target them. The public is misled to believe that pit bulls are like any other dog. And they just aren't. These dogs were bred to bait bulls. They were bred to fight each other to the death. Just because we're an animal-rights organization doesn't mean we're not concerned about public safety." For example, in the U.K., at least six of ten fatal dog attacks were attributed to the now-banned XL Bully breed in 2022.

Brian C. Anderson, PhD, Editor of City Journal explained, the dogs have been bred with unique qualities that can make them dangerous: "First, the pit bull is quicker to anger than most dogs, probably due to the breed's unusually high level of the neurotransmitter L-tyrosine. Second, pit bulls are frighteningly tenacious; their attacks frequently last for 15 minutes or longer, and nothing-hoses, violent blows or kicks-can easily stop them. That's because of the third behavioral anomaly: the breed's remarkable insensitivity to pain. Most dogs beaten in a fight will submit the next time they see the victor. Not a defeated pit bull, who will tear into his onetime vanquisher. This, too, has to do with brain chemistry. The body releases endorphins as a natural painkiller. Pit bulls seem extra-sensitive to endorphins and may generate higher levels of the chemical than other dogs."
Read More

Con 1

There is no evidence BSL makes communities safer.

BSL is ineffective because it treats the result (a dog bite) instead of the cause (bad animal owners). For example, Miami-Dade County, Florida, has had a pit bull ban since the 1980s, but the county still euthanizes about 800 illegally owned pit bulls per year. Aragon, Spain, saw no changes in dog bite numbers five years before and five years after BSL was enacted.

People who are breeding or training dogs for illegal fighting or to protect illegal activities will simply turn to another dog breed if pit bulls are banned. For example, following a 2005 pit bull ban in Council Bluff, Iowa, Boxer and Labrador Retriever bites increased, as did overall dog bites.

In 1990 when pit bulls were banned in Winnipeg, Canada, Rottweiler bites immediately increased. When the city changed the law in 2000 to be breed-neutral, all dog bites decreased.
Read More

Con 2

BSL is a distraction from legislation and policies that could actually accomplish safety goals.

According to a study of fatal dog bites between 1979 and 1996, "Although fatal attacks on humans appear to be a breed-specific problem (pit bull-type dogs and Rottweilers), other breeds may bite and cause fatalities at higher rates. Because of difficulties inherent in determining a dog's breed with certainty, enforcement of breed-specific ordinances raises constitutional and practical issues. Fatal attacks represent a small proportion of dog bite injuries to humans and, therefore, should not be the primary factor driving public policy concerning dangerous dogs. Many practical alternatives to breed-specific ordinances exist and hold promise for prevention of dog bites."

Best Friends Animal Society explained three mitigating factors in dog attacks: 97% of the owners had not sterilized the dogs; 84% of the owners had abused or neglected their dogs; and 78% were using the dogs as guard dogs or breeding dogs instead of keeping the dogs as pets.

The ASPCA also notes chaining and tethering dogs outside, lack of obedience training, and selective breeding for protection or fighting are risk factors for dog attacks.

Legislating poor animal ownership would be more effective than bans. For example, St. Paul, Minnesota, forbids people who have been cited for animal abuse or neglect two or more times from owning pets.

Calgary, Alberta, Canada, enacted a community policing policy that focuses on aggression rather than breed. The city saw a 56% decrease in aggressive incidents and 21% decline in bites in two years.

For these reasons, among others, BSL is opposed by the following organizations: American Bar Association, American Kennel Club, ASPCA, American Veterinary Medical Association, American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior, the CDC, Humane Society, National Animal Control Association, National Canine Research Council, and others.
Read More

Con 3

BSL is expensive to enact.

Nationwide, BSL would cost an estimated $476 million per year, including enforcement of the law, related vet and shelter care, euthanization and disposal, and legal fees. There are about 4.5 million dog bites per year, resulting in about 40 deaths, making each death cost taxpayers about $11.9 million.

That's a steep cost for a relatively small, albeit important, issue. There are about 78 million dogs in the United States, meaning less than 17% of dogs bite less than 1.4% and kill less than 0.00001% of the US population. And, of course, breeds not covered by BSL also bite. One study of 35 common breeds found Chihuahuas were the most aggressive.
Read More

Discussion Questions
1. Should cities enact breed-specific legislation? Why or why not?

2. What other policies might cities consider to curb dog bites and increase community safety? Explain your answer(s).

3. What other policies might cities consider to stop illegal dog fighting? Explain your answer(s).
Take Action
1. Consider DogsBite.org's pro position.

2. Explore Hann Gibson's " Detailed Discussion of Dog Fighting."

3. Analyze the American Veterinary Medical Association's con position.

4. Consider how you felt about the issue before reading this article. After reading the pros and cons on this topic, has your thinking changed? If so, how? List two to three ways. If your thoughts have not changed, list two to three ways your better understanding of the "other side of the issue" now helps you better argue your position.

5. Push for the position and policies you support by writing US national senators and representatives.
Sources

18.

JJ Sacks, et al., "Breeds of Dogs Involved in Fatal Human Attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998," Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov, Sep. 15, 2000

More Animal Debate Topics
Should K-12 Students Dissect Animals in Science Classrooms? - Proponents say dissecting real animals is a better learning experience. Opponents say the practice is bad for the environment.

Should Animals Be Used for Scientific or Commercial Testing? - Proponents say animal testing contributes to life-saving cures and treatments. Opponents say animal testing is cruel and inhumane.

Should Zoos Exist? - Proponents say zoos educate the public about animals. Opponents say wild animals should never be kept captive.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Should Pit Bulls Be Banned? Top 3 Pros and Cons

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Proponents of dog bans say they make communities safer. Opponents say other safety policies are more effective. Explore both sides of the debate.

# data[].attributes.headline
Are Pit Bulls the Most Aggressive Dog Breed?

# data[].attributes.subject
Are Pit Bulls the Most Aggressive Dog Breed?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Are pit bulls the most aggressive dog breed? Our team verifies

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Unilever uses alternatives to animal testing | Unilever

# data[].attributes.headline
Advantages and Disadvantages of School Uniforms

# data[].attributes.subject
Advantages and Disadvantages of School Uniforms

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why it is important to wear school uniforms - Advantages and disadvantages of school uniforms

# data[].attributes.headline
Helpful Website for Controversial Issues

# data[].attributes.subject
Helpful Website for Controversial Issues

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
ProCon.org - Pros and Cons of 100+ Topics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Explore both sides of debated issues. Presented in a non-partisan format with supporting background information, statistics, and resources.

# data[].attributes.headline
What You Need to Know About Becoming a Vegetarian

# data[].attributes.subject
What You Need to Know About Becoming a Vegetarian

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What you need to know before switching to a vegetarian diet