Johnicle's tournament resolution.

To the judges: I must apologize for my opponent's behavior. It is quite unprofessional and I find it useless trying to convince an individual of his mindset to give a cool calm argument without allowing his obviously out-of-control behavior. I hope that you see that my logic is infallible. To my opponent: Your out burst is noted and taken into account. I will now proceed with dismantling your previous arguments piece by piece. And now on to my opponent's Round 3 statements. He claims that I am putting the negative in the position that it cannot win. I assure you (the judges) that while it might seem that way, I can think right now of one very effective way to INTELLIGENTLY refute that. Of course I'm not going to reveal that now. I'll wait till the round is over and post it on the comments page. It should be a signal of my supremacy as a debater if I am able to give the idea that there is no way to counter my arguments. He claims that I have not used an ounce of logic in my cases against him. This is false. I defined a key term in the resolution and used that definition as a clear cut train of thought to prove my point in this case. That train of thought can be seen in my Round 2 arguments. My opponent then tries to convince you, the judge, that you are under a strict obligation to vote for him because of my supposed 'stupidity'. This is also false. You are free to choose the victor of this debate upon the grounds set to you by Johnicle. My opponent claims that I failed to refute his examples in his Round 2 arguments. I simply thought that they needed no comment due to the fact that I refuted the point that they supported, but for clarity I shall do so now. He claims that by sticking ideal on everything that it doesn't make it good. He then puts forth several rather graphic yet effective examples to prove his point. To a certain extent I agree with him. You can't just stick ideal on everything and it be automatically good, but in the case of the NCLB laws it is good. I have yet to see an argument from my opponent specifically refuting that, which he must do in order to make a good case. He claims that he argued that the fundamentals of the NCLB laws are flawed yet he doesn't actually say what those flaws are and thus his argument isn't valid. He mentions that the 'learn for the test' mindset is one of the downfalls of the NCLB. This is, again, false. Giving a reason for children to learn their material, even if simply to pass a test, is beneficial because they are more inspired to learn what is necessary for them. Thus it accomplishes the original goals of the educational process in a beneficial way. While he mentioned this supposed downfall he didn't actually explain how it is bad (the same applies to any other example he might have provided). Next he agrees with my point that the NCLB laws can be perfect, but says that this doesn't exactly mean that it is beneficial as the resolution states. This is preposterous. The words 'perfect' and 'beneficial' show up as synonyms in any legitimate thesaurus in the English language (I checked quite a few). Thus he isn't making any sense. If you look at the National Forensics League rules of debate in any format of debate you will see that it is the negative's burden to prove that the given resolution is false, while it never says that the affirmative has a burden of proof to prove the resolution true. In spite of this I still have shown how I have proven the statement true. Thus I have met this illegitimate burden of proof while my opponent has not met his legitimate burden of proof. My opponent now attacks me because I have proven that both of his approaches to the resolution are false and he claims that this is unfair. He is complaining about his inability to provide an adequate response to my arguments. Thus you can see how this is an underlying clue to his inability to debate. If you require me to accept defeat to gain your respect then I shall have go with out your respect because I cannot lie. I don't want, not need, your vulgar form of respect anyway. As a final note to the judges I would just like to point out a few 'voting issues' for you to mull over while you consider this debate. 1. My opponent presents no viable evidence to support his case while I do (legitimate dictionary). 2. My opponent presents his arguments in a crude and vulgar fashion that I find highly offensive. 3. My opponent has provided no real evidence or correct logic as to how the resolution is to be negated. 4. He cannot viably bring up any new arguments in the last round (according to basic debating rules) due to my inability to refute them. He can only further upon the arguments already presented in this debate. I now conclude my input for this debate by asking for the affirmative ballot. thank you