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

I'll start by responding to what my opponent said. "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." >> That's not what the resolution asks. It's not talking about or asking how the plan would work. Furthermore the argument is moot especially at the point where my definition of an ideal being something in it's perfection just goes flat out conceded. No matter how the plan works it functions to perfectly meet it's ends. Most importantly though I think my opponent has a great deal of argumentation he could make as opposed to harping on this point. For instance he could be weaving a story about how improving education doesn't necessarily help anything or increase the welfare of the United States. Additionally he could be arguing that it's never the education but rather what children choose to do with that education. Yet my opponent just doesn't argue any of these things. Instead he chooses to harp on a point that the resolution mandates I make. This debate isn't about how the ideal function it's about whether the ideal is good or not. Thus if the impacts of the ideal are beneficial for the welfare then the resolution is affirmed. The impacts of NCLB are higher education and I argue that is beneficial. My opponent never refutes this thus I easily affirm this resolution. "It must be a real thing....... An imaginary concept does nothing to assist or harm the United States." >> No it doesn't. My opponents logic is that since the United States is a real thing then the ideal NCLB would be. Consider this sentence, "An ideal form of genie's who grant three wishes would be beneficial to the welfare of the United States." Do these genies have to be real because the United States is? I'd argue no . The fact that the resolution says "would" opens this debate into a hypothetical world where literally anything is possible. Next my opponent argues this entire paragraph, "How do we know the ideal form is beneficial if we do not even know what the ideal form entails?...... That is seemingly dangerous is the hands of anybody." >>An entire paragraph about how idealism is subjective and how it could be interpreted by anybody. I'm simply going to extend my definition. 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. An ideal is something that meets it's goals perfectly. 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. I feel like I'm beating a dead horse.... sorry for the like 5x repeat. "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." >>An interesting argument except for the fact that you have to be 17 to sign up for the military and 18 to actually go to combat so they aren't really kids at that point. Additionally I'd still argue that having a broader range of possibilities is more beneficial to one's welfare. This give's one a greater amount of choices for their future. Finally I'd say the military isn't necessarily the evil's 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. Freedom of choice ftw! "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." >>Actually my opponent has a really solid point here. It does appear that I know something of the workings of NCLB from this sentence. Yet I'd still argue the same two things. 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. Secondarily though I make an argument on how having an education will lead to greater amounts of money in the long term. My opponent never refutes this. Thus even if one agrees with my opponents analysis on the first part then we'll still make that money back in the long term. But either way there are no impacts to deficit spending as outlined by my opponent so I don't think anyone would vote here anyways. "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." >>And here's where my opponent literally concedes that the ideal form would bring back more money in the long term. He says that a less than ideal but very good version could do this too. That's a good point, but the resolution is whether or not an ideal form of NCLB would be beneficial no whether an alternative that is lesser but still good would be. Thus my opponent concedes this to me. Furthermore my opponent says that it is potentially dangerous fiscally and socially but there's no warrant as to why that would be true. In fact I think I give a lot of analysis on why that wouldn't be the case especially when I'm arguing that this system would perfect education. Perfect education > nebulous "dangerous fiscally and socially" stuff my opponent is arguing for. "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........ Please supply some insight on that if possible" >>Right, it is necessarily true or it is not. But this debate is going to be judged on who best convinces the judges of which side is so. Thus if I best convince the judges that my side is most probably right I win. Otherwise my opponent wins. Expecting one side to prove the resolution 100% would be a rather unfair burden. Also my opponent argues that happiness can describe the United States. I'd say this is still false because the United States can't express emotion. But secondly I argued my definition was better because it was the common definition from any dictionary and my opponent conceded that point. To sum this all up. My opponent literally offers no offense for why an ideal form of NCLB would be a bad thing. I tell you that it would increase education which would be beneficial to the welfare of the United States and that goes dropped. At the end of this debate there is literally no reason to not vote Pro, con has given literally no reason why it wouldn't be beneficial. Rather he simply offers a litany of reasons why he doesn't like arguing against an ideal. Please extend my analysis from last round on why this doesn't matter. Finally I'd ask that no new argument are accepted in his final speech as I would have no chance to answer. I think my opponent has already had ample chance to argue against an ideal and has failed to do. Anyways, thank you to everyone!