The Instigator
resolutionsmasher
Pro (for)
Losing
33 Points
The Contender
fresnoinvasion
Con (against)
Winning
37 Points

Johnicle's tournament resolution.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 12 votes the winner is...
fresnoinvasion
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/18/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,565 times Debate No: 7447
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (12)

 

resolutionsmasher

Pro

I need to know if your still up to this. Johnicle says that if you're still up to the debate then we can still have it so let me know and I'll post the first case in round two.
fresnoinvasion

Con

sounds good to me
Debate Round No. 1
resolutionsmasher

Pro

My argument for this round will be short and sweet, yet decisive. Any further support of my case will be given through the attacks on my opponent's case.

First of all I will define the word 'ideal' which is in the resolution.
Ideal: In a form that is acceptable to most if not all parties involved, perfection or extremely close there unto, logically acceptable. (Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary)
Since the resolution asks if an ideal form of the NCLB act should be accepted, then by the very definition of the word ideal it makes sense to do so. What ever problems it has are eliminated in an ideal form and thus there is no down side to passing such a law. If there is no down side there is only an upside and thus we should pass it.

RESOLUTION IS AFFIRMED

thank you
fresnoinvasion

Con

"No Child Left Behind Act- a massive federal intrusion that impedes learning, encourages dropouts, narrows the curriculum, increases anxiety, fosters academic dishonesty, and does nothing to improve schools"- Ted Rueter

Teaching to the test does not ensure that students receive the education needed to survive in the real world. No Child Left Behind is a bad thing, this is conceded as of my opponents argument. "What ever problems it has are eliminated", he says, proving he thinks No Child Left Behind has flaws.

The fundamentals of NCLB are flawed, the underlying mindsets must be changed in order to cause something that will be beneficial to the welfare of the United States. No form of NCLB will ever have a positive impact on the United States because the idea in itself is flawed, no matter how different the new form of nclb is that the pro advocates.

At this point I have made arguments that all forms of NCLB will always be negative, the affirmative doesnt make any arguments otherwise. The offense of the debate is being felt by the pro, when the con has to offense to argue against. When he doesnt give 1 reason why to vote for him, you have to vote con.

"An ideal form of No Child Left Behind would be beneficial to the welfare of the United States"

He goes off on how if NCLB is "ideal" it must therefore be "logically acceptable". But the context of the resolution makes this untrue. It says the form of NCLB is ideal, but the fact is that ALL forms of NCLB are not good. So even an "ideal" form is not actually "logically acceptable". By attaching "ideal" to the front of everything, you dont make everything "good".

If I said im going to "punch you in the face ideally" You wouldnt find that a good thing

Im going to put "Ideal dog crap" all over your face

If you were to use an "ideal form of hair" to use as a biofuel, you would still not be able to use this "ideal" hair for positive. Thus, proving that the "form" of NCLB is "ideal" doesnt actually ensure that this will benefit society.
Debate Round No. 2
resolutionsmasher

Pro

My opponent states that I have proven that the NCLB laws have flaws. Yes, I agree, but only when applied to the current form of the program. I stand behind my original statement that an IDEAL form of NCLB would be beneficial because all problems have been eliminated. Any falacy that my opponent can bring up on the NCLB laws is not a plausible arguement because if that problem were translated to the 'ideal' form then it is no longer an ideal form and thus does not apply to this debate.

My opponent also brings up the idea that there is no ideal form possible in today's reality. While I assure you that there is I will simply address my opponent's argument for now. He claims that because there is no ideal form in reality then the ideal form is not acceptable. In responce I point this out: the resolution specifically asks for an IDEALISTIC form of the laws, my opponent demands a REALISTIC form which is NOT IDEALISTIC and thus his demands are not reasonable nor applicable to the resolution. Thus my idealistic form of the NCLB laws may not be realistic, but because they are properly idealistic we can assume they stand as proper evidence in this resolution.

My opponent also has the burden of proof in this debate. He is the negative, thus he must provide emperical evidence that the resolution is incorrect. You can easily observe the fact that he provides no evidence what so ever as to what is wrong with the resolution. Thus he cannot be considered as its winner.

HE HAS FAILED TO NEGATE THE RESOLUTION AND I HAVE EFFECTIVELY AFFIRMED IT.

thank you
fresnoinvasion

Con

At the point in which you make such a retarded argument, I will let you have it all.

He doesn't want to debate. This isn't even a debate anymore because hes being so ridiculously stupid with what he is saying. What argument can I possibly make in this debate round when he doesn't want to debate? He thinks that whoever chose this resolution wanted there to be no wins on the neg. Not once has he made a single argument or used an ounce of logic, just defined one word and said "look i win" but thats not going to work today, because judge, you are not going to allow it. Because of his stupidity neither side, nor spectators, no judges has learned a single thing; drop him for wasting all of our time.

Remember everything that I said in my last argument. That even though something can be "ideal" it doesnt make it good, it can still be bad. Remember the examples I provided. None of this logic went refuted.

Also remember that I argued the fundamentals of NCLB are flawed. Therefore there will never be a form of it that has no flaws. He doesn't argue for NCLB at all, the underlying mindsets that are present. He could have proved that the "learn for the test" mindset is a good mindset, arguing against what I said. But he doesnt, and he fails. I won the argument that the underlying mindsets of NCLB blow so there will never be a good version.

But even if you buy that NCLB can be "ideal", you will see that even within his abusive, stupid argument, there are flaws. He says that the ideal version of NCLB has no flaws. Sure, you can have that. But it still wouldnt be beneficial to the wefare of the United States. So it can have no flaws. It can be perfect. But it is not going to be beneficial. He fails the resolution once again.

And apparently I hold the burden of proof now. Thats stupid. He's the affirmative debater, he has to prove the resolution true.

And this next part of his argument is where he loses all credibility, and I no longer assume he has a brain stem. He says that I have to provide empirical evidence that the resolution is incorrect. So what is it now? I can't be realistic and point out empirical evidence that NCLB is flawed, and at the same time I can't argue that the ideology of NCLB is flawed? What can I argue? I have tried to argue both ways here today and the only way he gets out of the argument is by saying "this argument doesn't apply because X- argue a different way", and when I argue the other way it is the same exact response.

The only way I will hold any respect for you as a debater is by you submitting an argument with only the words "I lose" on it. This was a complete waste of time and theres no way youre going to win at this point.
Debate Round No. 3
resolutionsmasher

Pro

To the judges: I must apologize for my opponent's behavior. It is quite unprofessional and I find it useless trying to convince an individual of his mindset to give a cool calm argument without allowing his obviously out-of-control behavior. I hope that you see that my logic is infallible.
To my opponent: Your out burst is noted and taken into account. I will now proceed with dismantling your previous arguments piece by piece.

And now on to my opponent's Round 3 statements.
He claims that I am putting the negative in the position that it cannot win. I assure you (the judges) that while it might seem that way, I can think right now of one very effective way to INTELLIGENTLY refute that. Of course I'm not going to reveal that now. I'll wait till the round is over and post it on the comments page. It should be a signal of my supremacy as a debater if I am able to give the idea that there is no way to counter my arguments.
He claims that I have not used an ounce of logic in my cases against him. This is false. I defined a key term in the resolution and used that definition as a clear cut train of thought to prove my point in this case. That train of thought can be seen in my Round 2 arguments.
My opponent then tries to convince you, the judge, that you are under a strict obligation to vote for him because of my supposed 'stupidity'. This is also false. You are free to choose the victor of this debate upon the grounds set to you by Johnicle.
My opponent claims that I failed to refute his examples in his Round 2 arguments. I simply thought that they needed no comment due to the fact that I refuted the point that they supported, but for clarity I shall do so now. He claims that by sticking ideal on everything that it doesn't make it good. He then puts forth several rather graphic yet effective examples to prove his point. To a certain extent I agree with him. You can't just stick ideal on everything and it be automatically good, but in the case of the NCLB laws it is good. I have yet to see an argument from my opponent specifically refuting that, which he must do in order to make a good case.
He claims that he argued that the fundamentals of the NCLB laws are flawed yet he doesn't actually say what those flaws are and thus his argument isn't valid. He mentions that the 'learn for the test' mindset is one of the downfalls of the NCLB. This is, again, false. Giving a reason for children to learn their material, even if simply to pass a test, is beneficial because they are more inspired to learn what is necessary for them. Thus it accomplishes the original goals of the educational process in a beneficial way. While he mentioned this supposed downfall he didn't actually explain how it is bad (the same applies to any other example he might have provided).
Next he agrees with my point that the NCLB laws can be perfect, but says that this doesn't exactly mean that it is beneficial as the resolution states. This is preposterous. The words 'perfect' and 'beneficial' show up as synonyms in any legitimate thesaurus in the English language (I checked quite a few). Thus he isn't making any sense.
If you look at the National Forensics League rules of debate in any format of debate you will see that it is the negative's burden to prove that the given resolution is false, while it never says that the affirmative has a burden of proof to prove the resolution true. In spite of this I still have shown how I have proven the statement true. Thus I have met this illegitimate burden of proof while my opponent has not met his legitimate burden of proof.
My opponent now attacks me because I have proven that both of his approaches to the resolution are false and he claims that this is unfair. He is complaining about his inability to provide an adequate response to my arguments. Thus you can see how this is an underlying clue to his inability to debate.

If you require me to accept defeat to gain your respect then I shall have go with out your respect because I cannot lie. I don't want, not need, your vulgar form of respect anyway.

As a final note to the judges I would just like to point out a few 'voting issues' for you to mull over while you consider this debate.
1. My opponent presents no viable evidence to support his case while I do (legitimate dictionary).
2. My opponent presents his arguments in a crude and vulgar fashion that I find highly offensive.
3. My opponent has provided no real evidence or correct logic as to how the resolution is to be negated.
4. He cannot viably bring up any new arguments in the last round (according to basic debating rules) due to my inability to refute them. He can only further upon the arguments already presented in this debate.

I now conclude my input for this debate by asking for the affirmative ballot.

thank you
fresnoinvasion

Con

Redundancy isn't appreciated. Just remember all that I said and you'll vote for me.

Ill go over his "voting issues"

1. I cited a piece of evidence in my first argument. His definition on the round is what got him out of the arguments, making me have to debate "hypothetically". When I did begin to debate hypothetically, he said I need real world evidence, ignoring what I presented before. The only evidence I could have possibly presented in this round is evidence saying that the fundamentals of NCLB are flawed, and I did. This went unanswered and the answers he gave were non responsive to the argument. Learning for the test stifles creativity and stops teachers from teaching things that are useful to kids in America, and is therefore bad. Remember this evidence I provided, and this voting issue he says should go his way actually goes mine.

2. I find your redundancy and inability to actually debate the topic as annoying. Theres no reason to vote against someone for how they wrote their argument.

3. I did.

4. This "voting issue" mirrors your intelligence.
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by resolutionsmasher 8 years ago
resolutionsmasher
I really don't like this resolution.....
To many holes.....
You just end up debating how to debate that the actual topic....
Posted by Angrypants66 8 years ago
Angrypants66
Either the both of you need to quit debate, or learn a lot.
Resolution Master -
The burden of proof is Aff ALWAYS. You'd have to be insane to argue that because it's fact. Oh what next Jesus came back?
Also, your logic is HIGHLY flawed, EXTREMELY hypothetical (a huge fallacy in debate), and completely irrelivant. Quit trying your creative attacks, they are not working, well not in this debate anyways. Try to stick to traditional attacks, but throw some creativity in there.
And he doesn't have to have 'proof' your opponent can simply use logic. This isn't policy debate simply because policy debate sucks. Besides, you used the same amount of sources he did.

+You were still creative though.

Fresnoinvasion -
ANGER MANAGEMENT!!!
I saw something about we don't judge off what you type
The whole point of this is to judge what you type, we aren't mind readers. You type f-you and f-this then I look down at you, cuz that's just being a dick.

+More convincing arguements (Thus you do win)

My votes.
1.T
2.C
3.A
4.C (only because Con should win)
5.C
6.T
Posted by rougeagent21 8 years ago
rougeagent21
haha, dog crap.
Posted by trendem 8 years ago
trendem
Conduct: Pro
S & G: Tied.
Arguments: Con.
Sources: Tied.
Posted by trendem 8 years ago
trendem
Pro said:"...If you look at the National Forensics League rules of debate in any format of debate you will see that it is the negative's burden to prove that the given resolution is false, while it never says that the affirmative has a burden of proof to prove the resolution true..."

Really? Do you have any citations to back that up? I always thought that the affirmative has the burden of proof. Looky here:
"... in debate the burden of proof is placed on the affirmative team. "
http://www.nizkor.org...
"The burden of proof, therefore, usually lies with the party making the new claim."
http://en.wikipedia.org...

I thought Con's examples of "I will smear ideal dog crap over your face" were sufficient to negate the resolution. Con demonstrated that "ideal" cannot simply be affixed to any word to make it acceptable, thus rendering Pro's proof incomplete. Since Pro's proof is incomplete, he failed to satisfy his burden of proof.
Posted by rougeagent21 8 years ago
rougeagent21
Conduct-smasher
spelling-tied
arguments-smasher
sources-tied-there weren't any

Smasher won with his definition.
Posted by resolutionsmasher 8 years ago
resolutionsmasher
We didn't argue in the first round. It doesn't count.
Posted by I-am-a-panda 8 years ago
I-am-a-panda
There are 3 rounds in the tournament, not 4, As well, the resolution is the resolution John gives. Just a heads up!:)
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Epicism 8 years ago
Epicism
resolutionsmasherfresnoinvasionTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:25 
Vote Placed by Clockwork 8 years ago
Clockwork
resolutionsmasherfresnoinvasionTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
resolutionsmasherfresnoinvasionTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by crackofdawn_Jr 8 years ago
crackofdawn_Jr
resolutionsmasherfresnoinvasionTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by FeatherintheWind 8 years ago
FeatherintheWind
resolutionsmasherfresnoinvasionTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Zeratul 8 years ago
Zeratul
resolutionsmasherfresnoinvasionTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
resolutionsmasherfresnoinvasionTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by resolutionsmasher 8 years ago
resolutionsmasher
resolutionsmasherfresnoinvasionTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by trendem 8 years ago
trendem
resolutionsmasherfresnoinvasionTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Vote Placed by Angrypants66 8 years ago
Angrypants66
resolutionsmasherfresnoinvasionTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:14