Resolved: An ideal form of No Child Left Behind would be beneficial to the welfare of the U.S.

OBSERVATION: My kritik on the word "ideal" is relevant. If we were taking the recent NFL LD resolution on vigilantes, we see that it doesn't matter at what point the government has failed, we must only accept that the government has failed. This is a whole different story, especially when you look to my arguments. Basically, we don't know what form the ideal NCLB would take. My arguments are based off of proving that any form of NCLB would hurt the welfare of the U.S. What is NCLB's perfect condition? No clue. How can my opponent argue that the idea of an idea will help the U.S? CONTENTION 1: You can't pull this argument through judges unless you disagree with all of my attacks on C3. I'm arguing that no form of NCLB could help the United States, and thus, the ideal form provides no benefits over the current form. CONTENTION 2: My argument on C2 was that it's easy to say that NCLB has good intentions. I seriously doubt anyone wants to see the U.S. fail, especially those who lead the nation. Said leaders wouldn't attempt to sabotage our country, and thus it's easy to conclude that NCLB has good intentions. However, proof that good intentions don't necessarily mean benefits is in the current NCLB act. It's been dismal! Simply saying that NCLB in its ideal form would be beneficial because... its ideal... is circular logic and places no burden on the PRO while placing all of it on the CON. But I digress... NCLB having good intentions is only relevant to this debate to the extent that it proves we're trying to fix the education system. CONTENTION 3: My clarification on this debate being only on NCLB is relevant to this debate because anytime teachers are forced to make measured gains at the risk of a job, it retracts from school being a fun, engaging experience. NCLB forces teachers to focus on nothing but passing these tests. If you've ever messed up because you were TOO focused on something, you know what I'm talking about. Great examples come from sports. Why do football teams take a time our before a field goal attempt? To make the kicker think about the kick that much longer? Why do people taunt others with things like 'don't miss!' and 'no pressure!'? Simple; it adds pressure where, under ordinary circumstances, little pressure would be found. If you want to play those off as harmless jokes with no significance, expand them until the difference between success and failure is a job. Look at today's job market. Now tell me its not a big deal. The South Dakota Superintendent's opinions really can't help much. For instance, republicans and democrats have their own ways of dealing with the economy. Their ideas are totally opposite, and yet they have the same goal in mind: better the country. Whose to say that those ideas expressed are the best ideas to fix NCLB. Authority has been wrong before, so using his experience isn't valid either. Exxon Mobile, AIG (with their recent expenditure controversy), Bear Sterns, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, etc. all examples of huge businesses that went south really quickly despite experienced leaders. 1) I'm not asking for the education system to be perfect. And increasing odds don't necessarily mean a benefit for the U.S. What are the chances of winning the lottery? We'll be nice and say 1 in a million. I don't win the lottery. If I reduce those odds to 1 in 500,000, and still don't win the lottery, I haven't done anything. 2) Our ideas on education come from our parents. Actually, most of our ideas on life in general come from our parents. If education isn't sold as a valuable resource by the time a kid is in school, we've basically missed an opportunity. Are there exceptions, yes. But they're exceptions, not the norm. Those who don't care about education never will, and we end up regressing in society waiting on those who lag behind to... still lag behind, while we say we aren't leaving them behind. Of course we aren't leaving them behind... we aren't letting anyone get ahead! This destroys America's ingenuity and actually hurts the country. Any form of NCLB will do this. Even an ideal one. Any time you place someone's bread and butter in the hands of another group of people (a teacher's job in the hands of his/her students) you set yourself up for failure. Exactly, we can't know what the ideal from would include. It's my job to take any angle and prove how it wouldn't. When you rule out all the possibilities, it's easy to see that no NCLB is the best option. Simply providing opportunities for students isn't enough. Refer to the apathetic students argument, and students don't really want to be at school. The problem with this now is that lets take a random class as an example. We'll call them class A, and they are a graduating class (for clarification). This class has 100 people in it. 75 of them are excellent students, and gain proficient or above on the state assessments. Class B (the graduating class below class A) has lived in class A's shadow for their entire lives. They don't care, they'll never be as good as class A. This class also has 100 students, but only 30 of them pass proficient or above. Must be a bad teacher, right? It's easy to see this isn't the case. Testing teachers is the wrong way to go about improving education in the U.S. However, so is testing graduating classes. Take Class A again. They started out with 50 students making proficient or above. Now they're at 75. Class B, however, started out with 15 making proficient or above and are at 30. Is it fair to allow class B to be put into the same society as class A? No! Something went wrong here. Obviously testing by graduating class isn't a good idea either... No matter which way you cut it, NCLB is an all-around bad idea. No form, ideal or not, could benefit America.