RESOLVED: An ideal form of No Child Left Behind would be beneficial to the welfare of the USA

I would first like to apologize to my opponent... my internet crashed at my house, thus I was not able to type it when I had planned and consequently I forfeited round 2, however, not the debate :D ---My opponent really fails to see the objective harm here, and only looks to the subjective "benefit". But the problem is, that he gets neither. If you look to NCLB, its goal is to simply put everyone up to par. But if everyone has that amount of education, there will be too great of a competition of jobs and worse problems will result, AND no one would be willing to work the lower end jobs. This will create an economic crisis (objective) AND will cause problems on the individual level (subjective). My opponent refutes neither of these, please flow these through. 1) Students will STILL be apathetic. ---My opponent starts to argue that NCLB will make learning fun, but there are 4 problems with this. A) Some students will still not care even if it is fun, and B) Some teachers just can not be fun. Just like you can not get some students to learn, you can't get all teachers to make it enjoyable. There will always be that boring professor or teacher that just goes off of a book or power point, and C) NCLB can't legislate fun. There is nothing more laughable than forced 'fun', and D) It does not allow the teachers to be free in the way they teach. Certainly we should strive for 'entertainment', but this is neither appropriate for all (like AP Classes), nor does it allow the teacher to choose what is appropriate. Finally, the system being ideal, doesn't make the results ideal. And if it DOES, my contention 1 argument comes into play. My opponent is now sent down one of two roads, the road that does not help educate, OR, the road that educates all, but therefore increases job competition with good jobs and no one taking low spectrum jobs. 2) Perfect checks, does not mean perfect balance. ---The NAEP test seems to be pretty ideal in checking if people are smart, however, our school didn't care and bombed it. Now certainly there could be some incentives placed in for students to achieve an idealistic program, but there will still be flaws. For example, teachers will 'teach to the test', losing some true value in education. Also, the incentives will always 'not be good enough' for some (scholarships for people not going to college, or a Play Station 3 for someone who already has one). There will always be a flaw in the education, thus the benefits are not guaranteed, and since the resolution presupposes inevitable benefits, you must vote con since you can never be sure if you get these. ---My opponent once again misses the intention of my argument. I say that we can not make one system applicable for all (LIKE people in the ghetto and people in rich neighborhoods). These people need more than just ONE ideal system, they need THEIR ideal system. (Flow through) ---More money = high inflation. This makes your argument useless and once again my argument is pulled through. We need the worse jobs in order to get the food that we buy, or even the cars we buy. But yet these high standards that NCLB creates aims to goals that are unrealistic AND undesirable. Our economy could not support 300 million people with 100k a year jobs (or more) while at the same time have no one supporting the low spectrum jobs. More productivity (with better jobs) = more money but does not = a better economy. His Case: 1) Increase of education. ---Cross-Apply all of my arguments. This is basically the debate. 2) Smarter people = people not settling for bad jobs. ---If you look to Japan, they have great education, everyone is really smart. However, the supply and demand (if you will) for jobs is WAY too high. Now, the suicide rate in Japan is extremely higher then ours. Now, do we really want to fall into that? (no)... Furthermore, even you admit that you won't settle for a bad job because you are smarter than that, well what if we had millions more just like you? There would no longer be any jobs for the smart Americans to have anymore. 3) More money ---My opponent does not understand the economy. Look to my other arguments. 4) I'm Native. ---Only 6%. ---According to him, Natives will never learn and will always drop out. That means not even the ideal system of NCLB will help them :D ---The books hold no weight. So it's a dropped argument that means nothing at the end of this round. For all of these reasons, I urge you to vote CON! (I would like to once again apologize for forfeiting a round. But I guess we both got 2 full speeches in which in this case sufficed) Thank you!