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

Here goes: As a message of notification, rebuttals and furthering of my initial contentions from Round 1 are presented in no specific format. "[Oboeman] asks for a pragmatic plan on how to do this but that has absolutely nothing to do with the resolution. " Without a plan, how do we know that an ideal form of NCLB would indeed be beneficial to the United States? There are too many variables (e. g. cost) at stake that could affect the determining of whether or not the form is ideal or even feasible. "In fact, it doesn't even have to be a real thing. " It must be a real thing. The resolution upholds that it would be beneficial to the welfare of the United States. The United States is a real thing. An imaginary concept cannot be beneficial to the United States. An imaginary concept does nothing to assist or harm the United States. "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. " An ideal form of NCLB would seem awfully inflammatory with a sense of arrogance. To think that we have a perfected form of education is to think that we cannot strive to be better. In turn, without the yearn for further improvement, we would likely eventually begin to suffer in educational areas (e. g. courses, guidance, and better standards for teachers/students). The fact is, there is always room for improvement. Because of this essential postulate, an ideal form simply cannot exist. The forms of NCLB can always get better, but getting to an ideal form just cannot happen. It's like dividing by zero: it doesn't work. Indeed, my opponent must argue that an ideal form of NCLB would be beneficial to the welfare of the United States. But considering an ideal form simply cannot exist, how can a nonexistent NCLB act be beneficial as such? This poses a serious conundrum to the case for Pro, as it simply does not work. "The resolution doesn't say "Offer the ideal form of doing NCLB". " How do we know the ideal form is beneficial if we do not even know what the ideal form entails? Sub-categorically, the concept of an ideal is not what something is. Rather, it is how people view it. The possibility of an ideal form of NCLB coming into play is zero. That is everyone views his or her "ideal" in a different way. This fundamental truth inevitably creates that impossibility. An ideal is far too arbitrary to absolutely describe. There is no ideal form of NCLB for the United States. It is essentially a matter of opinion and individual perspective. For example, what definition of "ideal," according to whom, ought we to go by in determining this ideal form of NCLB? Should we accept the hypothetical form of that of the government? That puts a significant amount of power into their hands, in the theoretical determining of an eventual perfected form of NCLB. That is seemingly dangerous is the hands of anybody. "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. " This is still exposing children to the evils of society. The most fundamental value our society can have is the respect to life. The military poses a threat to this value. And even though children are not forced to join, it is obviously encouraged. The safest route is to not unnecessarily expose children to the military at all. "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. " First off, this only provides further evidence toward my claim of the government being illogical. This nation should NOT be spending "hundreds of billions on bailouts and wars. " Yet it is still being done. Can be truly trust our government to provide us with an ideal form of NCLB? Secondly, my opponent states that NCLB will not equal that much money anyway. This indicates that my opponent has some degree of knowledge regarding this ideal form. How can we be so sure that an ideal form will not be so costly? In order to deduce for certain, we must first know how the ideal form would work. This, again, is a burden for Pro. "But two, I'd argue that an education allows our people to be more competitive and actually increases country GDP in the long term. " A less-than-ideal form, yet still extremely good, of education reform would do that as well. But having the word "ideal" in there leads one to necessarily infer that the policy would do whatever it takes to be considered "ideal. " This is potentially dangerous fiscally and socially. "I just have to be more likely right than my opponent. " The resolution clearly states, "An ideal form of NCLB would be beneficial to the welfare of the United States. " Ergo, the resolution either is necessarily true or it is not. As Pro, my opponent is affirming the resolution. As Con, however, I am not necessarily claiming the resolution to be explicitly false (although I largely still am anyway), but that Pro is incorrect. "How can the United States be Happy? " The state of being happy is the same as happiness. The United States can indeed have happiness, health, and prosperity. The United States consists of citizens, of which the definition would necessarily apply. "Well-being" is basically synonymous. Secondly, on a similar topic note, who is to say that an ideal form of NCLB would be BENEFICIAL to the WELFARE of the United States (assuming the definition properties as provided)? The resolution implies that this ideal form would be promoting/enhancing the well-being of the state of happiness/health/prosperity (or even just "well-being") of the United States? This state of happiness/health/prosperity/well-being is based on opinion of each individual citizen in the nation. How can we be certain that such an ideal form of NCLB would indeed do such? Is my opponent suggesting an ability to look into the minds of others? As far as I know, proving that the citizens of this nation have that opinion seems futile and not possible. Please supply some insight on that if possible.