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

Time to end this. ============================================= CON's observations ============================================= 1) In response to my point that I merely have to show one benefit, PRO states that increasing the prosperity would mean I had to agree to perceiving the resolution in terms of a net gain, however if you look at the resolution, it clearly states "beneficial TO THE welfare." It says nothing about INCREASING 2) See above 3) PRO states that I am to show what an ideal form of NCLB would look like since I carry the burden of proof, however, this is non sequitur. No place in the resolution do we see anything to indicate that I'd have to describe an ideal form of NCLB. I simply have to argue that an ideal form of NCLB would be beneficial. As far as ======================================================== RE: CON'S CONTENTIONS ======================================================== 1) RE: "States define the standards." CON responds to my argument via strawman fallacy by insisting that I am referring to the national government stepping in and defining the standards, hence going against the constitution. Let me stop him right there. I've claimed that an ideal form of NCLB would have countermeasures to prevent states from manipulating the standards. I have not specified on these countermeasures because I do not know of them and because I don't have to know of them. The resolution has taken care of such burdens by guaranteeing perfection from the start while existing in the realm of imagination. CON can ignore the resolution as much as he wants to and continue insisting that the same problems exist in any form of NCLB, however, this does not secure him any victory. 2) The use of standardized tests CON claims that he has stated that the use of standardized tests applies in both an ideal form and the current form. I am well aware of him having stated this, however, he has given no reason as to why an ideal form to succumb to the flaws which he even went so far as to provide self testimony on. Furthermore, CON attempts to get around the fact that we are speaking ideally by mentioning that ideal people are not involved, however, in order to truly be ideal, everything must act in accordance to perfection. An ideal form of NCLB does not require ideal people. Results can be reached in such a way to compensate for people not being ideal. To pacify my opponent, I had gone on to point out that an ideal form of NCLB could provide the correct incentives needed to insure that teachers wouldn't be inclined (or the alternative of teachers not being informed of the format of the test in such a way that the students and the teachers wouldn't be aware until they were taking them). 3) Schools receive funding based on scores. CON states that an ideal form would remove performance based funding to schools, however, this is yet again PRO's attempt to concoct a strawman argument so that he may precisely attack a quality of NCLB and conclude that it isn't ideal (not perfect), however, as is the case with his rebuttal to my rebuttal against his first contention, I'm merely insisting that there be countermeasures to insure that schools not remove students because they do not perform well. I am not urging any SPECIFIC kind of countermeasures as I do not have to thanks to the resolution. Because of this, CON's objection fails. 4) Cross apply observation #3. PRO has demonstrated nothing to prove that there are flaws in an improved form of NCLB