Resolved: The initiative "UN Global Classrooms" is beneficial to American students.

My opponent has accepted both of my observations, meaning judges that you will evaluate the winner of this debate on the basis of these terms and observations. I will continue down the flow toward his arguments.Sources: I would like to point out on the part of my opponent's sources that the articles he posted from The New American, Prison Planet, and Soda Head are all the exact same article by John Wolverton from The New American. Although it isn't necessarily wrong because of this reason, these are biased sources considering that the author of this particular article is a conservative one working for a conservative online magazine. Again, this doesn't mean that the evidence should particularly be disregarded considering that even biased sources can have legitimate information, but nevertheless, keep this in consideration when deciding the winner of the sources vote.Contention 1: From the beginning to the end of this argument, we notice one thing: this contention is irrelevant to the scope of the resolution. The resolution questions the benefit and harms of the individual with consideration that it questions the cost/benefit analysis to the American student. My opponent however analyzes this matter through a perspective of the society with consideration that it talks about forging allegiance toward a global community rather than the domestic one. This in no way analyzes a benefit or a cost toward the individual student. Even if this argument is somehow relevant to the scope of this debate and resolution, however, my opponent makes an argument that doesn't logically follow. His argument is that because the UN makes an emphasis on the benefit of the global community through the establishment of the MUN, this means that there's going to be a diminished emphasis on the allegiance toward one's own country. First, my opponent's sources fail to make that argument any more tangible. I have read before the articles that my opponent has posted and not once has there been any mention of an example of any student whose allegiance to the United States has been diminished as a result of this organization. Second, my opponent's argument seems to imply that it is impossible to be an agent toward aiding the global community while still retaining an allegiance to one's own country and because the UN is an agent toward aiding the global community, it emphasizes that there should a mitigation toward the allegiance or sovereignty of one's own country. Again, none of my opponent's sources come close to validating this beyond a shadow of a doubt. Contention 2: If we were to give my opponent the benefit of the doubt that there are truly no benefits whatsoever that come from the United States itself, this argument fails to account the benefits that the MUN could bring to these students from other countries themselves, meaning that if there are any supposed benefits from other countries as implied by my opponent's contention, it means that I'm already winning this debate through my burden as specified in Observation 2. This small fact aside, however, there are also many other aspects in this contention that should be addressed. This contention also seems to be analyzing the resolution from the perspective of the society rather than the individual with consideration that my opponent makes mention of the beginning resentment and bitterness in one's own nation, including the aspects of rebellion. This is a concern of the nation rather than directly of the individual, meaning that even if this contention were correct, it is irrelevant to the scope of the resolution. Once again, the reasonings in this contention are just as precarious as the ones in the previous contetion. The results that my opponent claims will occur are all dependent on the idea that people in this group under this training will rebel against their own country, that bitterness will form against their own nation, that training will place these students at a curriculum held above the current citizen status of their own nation, etc. Once again, none of his sources succeed in solidifying this beyond a shadow of a doubt and works under the reasoning that increased support for the global community will equal diminished support for the domestic one, a reasoning as I explained has no logical following nor warrant in the previous contention. Contention 3: First of all, my opponent himself stated 2 of the benefits that I have mentioned in my own case and implies that these are indeed two benefits that come from MUN. This means that parts of my case have been extended across the flow and highlights the true objective of my opponent's case: emphasizing allegiance to one's own country rather than focusing on the true matter of this debate: the betterment of the individual American citizen. This entire contention is based on the same reasoning he has failed to account for or provide evidence for in the previous two contentions, meaning that it seems as if the entire case is not only flawed in the idea that his thesis is not supported but irrelevant because it isn't even looking at the correct matter at hand. This contention has the same problem as the last one: none of his evidence validates anything that this contention is saying. The Superiority of My Evidence: While we're on the matter of the warrants of the arguments on both sides, it's evident that my evidence is stronger because it proves that everything I'm saying logically follows. Students get better at research, leadership, speaking, etc. because MUN provides the experience and environment at which to practice on those characteristics and merits. Students have a stronger academic advantage because they learn about culture and MUN provides what colleges are looking for in students as my evidence pointed out in a list of things that colleges are looking for. My evidence does what evidence is supposed to do: provide empirics and warrant toward the reasoning of my argument. What my opponent seems to have done is looked at the perspective of an article, reiterate it in this case, and make up what he perceives to be results of what would happen with the establishment of MUN rather than finding evidence for anything that he is saying. Because I use my evidence to the fullest and most optimal utility, it is evident that I should be the winner of the sources point in this case.