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

======================================================== DEFINITIONS: ======================================================== I have no objections to CON's definitions. ======================================================== CON's observations ======================================================== 1)I agree with what my job is in this debate (as you'll note, this is essentially the same as my own observation in the first round). However, CON's remark about the implementation of NCLB having no effect pm the fortune of the nation is quite false. With NCLB perfectly achieving it's goal in better education, more citizens in general have more access to better jobs, hence beneficial from an economical perspective. 2) Furthermore, CON states that his job is to merely show that NCLB is not beneficial to the United States. However, as I've insinuated in R1, this is false. Ladies and gentleman, as you can see from the resolution, there is nothing to suggest that my job is to demonstrate how NCLB is beneficial ON BALANCE or IN GENERAL. Because of this, I can win this debate merely by showing how NCLB is in some way beneficial. Ergo, even if I fail to refute any negatives which CON points out, it shall not matter int he least as long as I successfully demonstrate benefits. It is CON who must refute any benefits which I provide. If you (the judges) even buy a single benefit, then I win the debate by default. 3) CON points out that NCLB requires children's names and phone numbers to be given to army recruiters. However, as he had guessed, I must point out that an ideal form of NCLB has no flaws. Thus, if this is in fact a flaw to normal NCLB, you must heed my first R1 observation and dismiss it immediately. Since his last observation treads into his actual contentions, I shall continue responding below. ======================================================== RE: CON'S CONTENTIONS ======================================================== 1) RE: "States define the standards." A) CON is yet again guilty of ignoring the resolution as he points out a flaw that applies to normal NCLB. However, with an ideal NCLB program, there would be counter measures in place to insure that states do not make their tests very easy in the first place. B) CON states that lower standards would apply to either the current form of NCLB or an ideal form, but never bothers to explain how this problem would still exist in an IDEAL form of NCLB (which, once again, is a form of NCLB that does not possess any shortcomings and exist within the imagination). In addition, there is nothing in his source which is applicable to an ideal form of NCLB either, so you can dismiss it entirely. 2) RE: "The use of standardized tests" Once again, CON is blatantly ignoring the resolution. In an ideal form of NCLB, teachers would be able to teach students all of what they needed to learn while having the incentive not to slack off (or heck, teachers could simply not be informed of the format of the test until the students were taking them . . . whichever the case or details, I need not elaborate any further). We know this to be true as (and once again), ideal refers to a flawless system that exist within the imagination. 3) RE: "Schools receive funding based on scores" And yet again, an argument which doesn't adhere to the resolution. In an ideal system, there would be countermeasures against any kind of incentive for the school to remove students that do not perform as well on test (schools having to report every student who gets removed to the state or some government organized institution would be one, but once again, I need not elaborate as the resolution forces us to assume that there are methods in place to prevent shortcomings). 4) " It costs money" PRO states that an ideal form of NCLB would cost more money, but in an ideal form of NCLB, not only would the economical advantages of no child being left behind serve to make up for any spending in a long term perspective, but given that we're speaking in IDEAL terms, the amount of money used to stabilize the system would no doubt be planned in such a way that there is only a positive net gain. Ladies and gentleman, what my opponent's case boils down to is problems which concern a non ideal version of NCLB. However, as pointed out by even my opponent, the resolution is flawed. This is because we're referring to a form of NCLB that is perfect while only existing in the imagination. I do not for one moment enjoy having this ridiculous advantage over my opponent, but nevertheless, I must argue with what I'm given. Of course, there is a way to argue against this case, but it most certainly doesn't involve citing precedent (which is all my opponent has managed to do). ======================================================== MY CASE ======================================================== My argument that a perfect form fo NCLB would increase education still stands. We must keep in mind that with increased education, individuals in general have more job opportunities, hence drastically benefiting the economy, not to mention allow the country more opportunities to improve in all areas (medicine, technology, industry, etc). Not to mention that better education allows indiivduals to function better in society (as already pointed out). In short, it's advantageous to the USA's welfare. CON has yet to dispute these benefits provided by an ideal system, thus there is no reason to vote in favor of him. I now await CON's round 2.