Extemporaneous speech about no school uniform policy

Please do not copy but revise what i wrote for your speech. Thank you!

Explanation:

Uniforms. The definition for uniform is the distinctive clothing worn by members of the same organization or body or by children attending certain schools. But the meaning of uniform back then is not the same as now. Because modern fashion trends tend to expose more skin or more body somebody might think someone is asking for it. An amazing example is young girls between the ages of 11-16 years old. Those ages tend to follow in other people's footsteps and essentially want to be the IT girl. That means that if the IT girl right now is wearing ripped jeans, they will too. Young boys are going through puberty the same time young girls are. Young girls will develop breast and will start their menstrual cycle. Boys will grow hair on their body and their body will start changing too. Their voice will change and they will be going through a hormonal struggle. when Girls will experiment fashion they might show their skin a little a bit more and that might turn a boy on. Dress code does the same thing as uniforms. It was made so young boys can focus and girl will have to cover up their legs, arms, stomach, and their shoulders. Since when does a boy ever say "shoulders, That's so hot" Never. Uniforms were made for boys to focus and so that girls will be uncomfortable knowing boys might have fantasies about them. Uniforms might be to stop boys from getting distracted or may have been their from the get-go since their school was built. Uniforms have no good reasoning but to help boys focus and make girl cover up.

as much wood as a woodchuck could chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood.

sadly it cannot chuck wood

read this passage from the crisis. what rationale is paine using for going to war with great britain? my own line of reasoning is to myself as straight and clear as a ray of light. not all the treasures of the world, so far as i believe, could have induced me to support an offensive war, for i think it murder; but if a thief breaks into my house, burns and destroys my property, and kills or threatens to kill me, or those that are in it, and to "bind me in all cases whatsoever" to his absolute will, am i to suffer it? what signifies it to me, whether he who does it is a king or a common man; my countryman or not my countryman; whether it be done by an individual villain, or an army of them? if we reason to the root of things we shall find no difference; neither can any just cause be assigned why we should punish in the one case and pardon in the other.

it is waged war against an army of countrymen

it would lead to independence from britain

it would be an offensive war

it would be a defensive war