An ideal form of NCLB would be beneficial to the welfare of the United States.

Haha! And I greet you too Oboeman, may the debate be interesting. I'm just going to be going right down my opponents arguments. Maybe I'll tag some things on at the end. A-B-U-S-E (Not in a violent way! ) ==================== A. My opponent argues that my case is so tight that you, as a voter, are not going to vote for me. Justification? He's being biased against. I probably have a few responses. 1. First, no one is ever going to vote for an abuse story when the resolution actually mandates what the "abuser" is running. Case: An ideal form of NCLB would be beneficial to the welfare of the United States. Anything outside of that is outside of the resolution. If you vote me down because of my case then you vote me down because I was stuck with this side of the resolution. 2. Second, in a debate tournament where we each get to advocate a side once you're never going to vote for an abuse story. Why? Because he gets my position next round and can win with it. I'm not being abusive in any way. 3. My opponent asks for a pragmatic plan on how to do this but that has absolutely nothing to do with the resolution. Offering a plan is nowhere in it. Furthermore extend my definition where I tell you that it is the concept of something in it's perfection. 4. In fact, it doesn't even have to be a real thing. Check out this definition which includes mine and expands upon it. Ideal: adjective 1 most suitable; perfect. 2 desirable or perfect but existing only in the imagination. . http://www.askoxford.com... Oxford dictionary. 5. Next my opponent demands I tell him how this ideal form will function. .. . Hmmm. .. I wish I knew quite honestly. I wish I had the ability to know how everything would work in it's perfection. I wish I could walk into the white house right now and tell them what the ideal from of NCLB would be. But that's the point of an ideal isn't it? A gleam of something in it's perfection, a goal to strive towards, always a little out of sight. Always a little room for improvement. Luckily for me the resolution does not say that I must divulge what the ideal form is. Rather it simply says that I must argue the ideal would be beneficial. Notice the WOULD BE in that sentence. It doesn't even matter if the ideal can be attained. 6. Finally. I can think of some really decent arguments against this case (seeing as I'm going to need to next round. ) Yet my opponent isn't choosing to run any of those arguments. Thus you're not going to punish me because of what my opponent doesn't do. An ideal form! .. .. of doing something? ======================== A. My opponents argument is that an ideal form of doing something is the best way to carry it out. 1. Yeah he's right. The ideal form of doing NCLB would be the way to best way to carry it out. 2. Luckily the resolution doesn't say "Offer the ideal form of doing NCLB", I'd probably just flat out lose on the resolution. .. .. . 3. Instead the resolution says that the ideal form of NCLB would be beneficial. The ideal form as already defined is the form in it's perfection. A form in it's perfection would meet all of it's goals irrespective of how it was being done. Thus the ideal form of NCLB does indeed meet it's goals whether or not I can tell you how the ideal form of NCLB is being done. B. Next under this contention my opponent argues that the ideal form would have to include standardized testing because the form today does. 1. That's not true. The resolution allows me to advocate for the ideal. 2. Meaning I don't have to advocate for any past version. 3. But third, it doesn't matter. Whether it uses standardized testing or not it works perfectly. .. .. -. - The Military Snagged Our Numbers! ======================= A. My opponents argument is simply that NCLB allows recruiters to have numbers. Thus the ideal form would do this rather perfectly. 1. First I'll argue this has no negative impact at all. The young adults who's numbers/names/etc are given are not forced to sign up. 2. Secondly I'd argue it's a good thing. The fact that so many numbers are coming in means that the military will have to hire more recruiters to manage phone lines. This gives more people jobs. 3. I'll argue that young adults being called is also a good thing. It lets them realize that they potentially have more options. The more options they have, the better choices they can make. 4. And finally. If the recruitment system was working perfectly people would probably know about it. Thus in the worst case scenario I'd postulate that young adults would know enough as to request that there number wasn't given. Bush is teaching CoRuPt education! ====================== A. Oboeman argues that the government is corrupt and thus it's educational goals are illogical and faulty. Responses: 1. First off there isn't any analysis on why the government is corrupt or would be corrupt. 2. Additionally I'd argue that even if the government was corrupt that doesn't mean that it would have any impact on the education sector. In fact I'd say that even if our government was a secret dictatorship then the education sector would still be fine. Education = country being competitive on a global level. If a country corrupted their education system then they'd just be shooting themselves in the foot. Which believe it or not is not the goal of a corrupt regime. 3. But more importantly than either of those arguments: who cares. My opponent says that "the initial act is inherently flawed". Even if this was true, which I don't think my opponent gives any analysis as to why that is true, it still doesn't impact my case in any way. The idea of the ideal that it overcomes the flaws in the system. Whether the original had flaws or not has no impact on the ideal. 4. Extend my argument as to what the broad goal of NCLB is: "The bottom line of such is an aim at improving the performance of U. S. primary and secondary schools. " Even if the original was just horrible at doing this the ideal meets it. That's what an ideal is. NCLB = expensive! ========= 1. First I'd say that expense is never going to do much of anything. Especially when we literally spend hundreds of billions on bailouts and wars. NCLB will never equal that. 2. But two, I'd argue that an education allows our people to be more competitive and actually increases country GDP in the long term. Government intervention = bad =================== A. My opponent argues that we should do a libertarian approach. 1. There's no support as to why government intervention in education is detrimental. 2. But we're still talking about an ideal. And the ideal would perfectly fulfill it's goal. Something which I'd argue is rather beneficial. 3. All schools enforce standards on children. Not just NCLB. 4. Even if libertarianism was good that doesn't disprove that ideal NCLB is also good. My opponent simply offers me another good thing. Burden ====== A. My opponent argues I must prove the resolution true. 1. I'd say no, I just have to be more likely right than my opponent. Especially in a case where there is no empirical examples to look at. 2. I'd also argue that my opponents definitions are out of context. He says that welfare is the state of being happy and healthy and prosperous. However welfare modifies the United States in this sentence. How can the United States be Happy? 3. Counter definition. Welfare: Well-being. This is the common definition that can easily be found on any dictionary. 4. Also I'd argue that this means that I really do uphold the resolution. Extend where I say in my first round that higher education would improve vaccines thereby saving people. I think this would be one of the largest perks and easily proves that ideal NCLB is beneficial to the welfare of the United States.