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

Here goes: "It's not talking about or asking how the plan would work…The impacts of NCLB are higher education and I argue that is beneficial." The way in which NCLB would be considered "ideal," as my opponent has stated, would be if it perfectly meets the criterion addressed in Round 1: improving the performance of U.S. primary and secondary schools. There is still nothing to do with cost or other potential significant variables in this objective of NCLB. These variables are not controlled with this type of ideal NCLB, and thus could work as a detriment to the welfare of the United States, such as making the country extremely weak(er) financially, easily making the nation more vulnerable to all types of damage. "[Oboeman's] logic is that since the United States is a real thing then the ideal NCLB would be." Rather, my point was that, by a real thing, I meant something that is known in regards to what it is. In the case of a genie, it is known as to what that all entails. In the case of an ideal form of NCLB, my opponent still fails to go any farther than barely hint on what this would entail. "An ideal is something that meets its own goals perfectly. Not from the government's point of view.... not from my point of view... rather from what is perfect. In other words we're arguing an objective truth here. Meaning if there was anything imperfect about the governments version of ideal NCLB then that would not be the ideal. Rather the ideal is the perfection." Still, though, the entire concept of meeting something at its perfection is indescribable on an absolute basis. It could be considered meeting its goals perfectly, at its current form, by some. No matter how much revising and idealizing is done with NCLB, the concept of it being perfect, and therefore at an ideal, is not possible. An objective truth as my opponent describes is not possible. This definition of a given form of NCLB being beneficial, or ideal, is going to change from one person to another. "...Additionally I'd still argue that having a broader range of possibilities is more beneficial to one's welfare....Finally I'd say the military isn't necessarily the [evils] of society. I'd say the military can definitely do good but ultimately it's still one's choice to join so their is no harm." Regardless of age limitations, the act of merely exposing and influencing a child in military affairs is a detriment to the most fundamental value of society. It increases the chances that that child will join. While it does give an additional possibility, consider the possibilities and opportunities lost for the innocent civilians that are killed as a result of military combat. I would hardly consider this to be beneficial to the welfare of anyone. Finally, it is not the choice of an innocent civilian to be killed as part of a casualty of war. This is harm caused. The fundamental integration of military influence in NCLB serves as a detriment to values and overall social welfare. "From an intuitive standpoint no one program has surpassed the kind of unprecedented spending we have seen in the bailout, stimulus, and Iraqi war. Thus I'd say from a mere probability factor this will still cost less than that considering it's a social welfare/education program." This does not prove that an ideal form of NCLB would be cost-friendly. Remember this: rarely, if ever, has the United States passed an ideal form of a bill or law. Thus, the concept of having an ideal act is almost inconceivable; it's uncharted territory. Probability also fails to necessarily prove that an ideal form of NCLB would favor the nation fiscally. The resolution does not state that an ideal form of NCLB would PROBABLY be beneficial, but rather that "an ideal form of NCLB would be beneficial". "Secondarily though I make an argument on how having an education will lead to greater amounts of money in the long term." Although having an education may in the long run make more money, it is still not possible to determine the outcome of how it may be more significant than the initial cost anyway. "Furthermore my opponent says that it is potentially dangerous fiscally and socially but there's no warrant as to why that would be true." A less-than-ideal form might be able to decrease the cost ten-fold, in comparison to an ideal form of NCLB. Being specifically at any ideal means the objective is obtained in its entirety. Just by having its entirety in there could result in spending billions of more dollars. This would not be beneficial to the welfare of the United States. It is much easier to create an efficient system than a perfect system. Again, my opponent does not specify on how the ideal system would function, so we don't know how dangerous this system could become. "But this debate is going to be judged on who best convinces the judges of which side is so." Yet if I am able to logically refute all of the points presented by my opponent, I still win. "United States can't express emotion." Consider the resolution, referring to the "welfare of the United States." The United States consists of citizens that the term welfare is referring to. As an outline, these are the main reasons to vote CON: The possibility of having an ideal form of NCLB is zero, considering educational reforms can always improve (See Round 2; as well, this goes unrefuted). Next, my opponent cannot prove that ideal form of NCLB would be beneficial, as an ideal form is subjective to each individual, and whether or not it would be beneficial is similarly arbitrary. Whether something is beneficial is an opinion, and it varies from person to person. A perfected form of such an act could cost trillions; it is not possible to know for certain, as my opponent fails to derive and describe an ideal form of NCLB. Such a large increase in spending would be detrimental (not beneficial) to the welfare of the United States. I refuted the points made by my opponent to a logical degree. (Refer to all debate rounds as well.) For the reasons described in this debate, it would be logical to vote CON. I would like to thank my opponent for this exciting debate. And good luck in the rest of the tournament. It has been quite an intriguing debate. Cheers, Oboeman