The Instigator
Logical-Master
Pro (for)
Losing
16 Points
The Contender
NOK_Domination
Con (against)
Winning
29 Points

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

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/17/2009 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,849 times Debate No: 7431
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (8)

 

Logical-Master

Pro

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

=======================================
DEFINITIONS:
=======================================

NCLB: "'The law reauthorized a number of federal programs aiming to improve the performance of U.S. primary and secondary schools by increasing the standards of accountability for states, school districts, and schools, as well as providing parents more flexibility in choosing which schools their children will attend."

As another debater (Yraelz) has stated, the bottom line of such is an aim at improving the performance of U.S. primary and secondary schools.

Ideal:

• adjective 1 most suitable; perfect. 2 desirable or perfect but existing only in the imagination.

• noun 1 a person or thing regarded as perfect. 2 a principle to be aimed for; a standard of perfection.

SOURCE:http://www.askoxford.com...

=======================================
Observations concerning the resolution
=======================================

#1. We must keep in mind that it is merely my task as the instigator to demonstrate how an IDEAL form of the NCLB would be beneficial to the welfare of the USA. In other words, I merely have to show how this system would be beneficial IDEALLY. I'm sure many of you are familiar with the saying that "Communism works ideally." We must keep in mind that 'ideal' explicitly means flawless; we're referring to something which is brimming with perfection. Thus, any attempts by CON to point out any so-called flaws which the NCLB act has had in the past ought to be dismissed immediately without further consideration.

#2. To further add on what my job is, I merely have to show that NCLB is in some way beneficial. In other words, even on the off chance my opponent is successful in pointing out any negatives to a perfect form of NCLB (which, for the heck of it, I shall gladly refute anyway), the only way he/she can win while upholding his side of the resolution is to refute the benefits which I ponit out.

Thus, without further ado, let us proceed.

=======================================
If handled ideally, NCLB would perfectly allow all students to be successfully educated, hence improving being beneficial the US welfare.
======================================+

For quite some time, US schooling have been suffering all kinds of problems in terms of the lack of education. There is a reason we are considered a laughing stock in comparison to other countries. I propose that with a perfect form of NCLB law, education would be improved. Education is most certainly beneficial given that it allows individuals to ascertain more knowledge as well as be more capable of dealing with society. In addition, ideally, we are guarenteed a system with no setbacks.

I reserve the right to introduce new arguments in the next round should I find such necessary.

And that shall be all for now. In the next round, my opponent is probably going to call my case abusive (as people generally seem to be of the impression that seemingly unwinnable debates = abuse), ask for me to explain the details of a perfect form of NCLB or just focus on citing precedent. I'll gladly respond to such objections, however, as you will find out soon enough . . . none of these objections shall have any influence on this debate.

Till the next round. :D
NOK_Domination

Con

I would like to start out by saying I do NOT find Pro's arguments abusive. In last year's tournament I had an opponent call me abusive for the same thing. I don't understand why people believe a flawed resolution is abusive and if a person is to dwell on that, they are offended. First of all abuse is when a person is beaten and mugged in a back alley, not semantics. Secondly, a lot of judges just dismiss the argument, even if they shouldn't. I am definitely given a huge obstacle with the resolution considering it was not very well written. Furthermore Pro's definition as it applies to the resolution is "perfect, but existing only in the imagination". That would beg the question as to why you would want to debate the topic since it's clearly not attainable. Overall it's a poorly written resolution. So without further ado I will attempt to hurdle the obstacle.

The adjective definition in cons case for ideal is the one that should be used. In the resolution it is an adjective, not a noun.

I would like to define a couple of terms in the resolution as well:
Welfare:
-the good fortune, health, happiness, prosperity, etc., of a person, group, or organization; well-being: to look after a child's welfare; the physical or moral welfare of society. (The second example clearly shows there are two different types of welfare in society; just another flaw in the resolution)

Beneficial:
-Advantageous.

Both definitions were taken from dictionary.com

With both terms defined I would like to look at the resolution more carefully. According to the resolution, NCLB is supposed to be advantageous to the fortune, health, happiness, and prosperity of this fine nation. That's the nation as a whole, not just one person or one group of people, but rather a majority of this country. Those are the four areas in which pro needs to prove that a new form of NCLB can help (remember that pro is given the burden of implementation since it is he who is advocating a change in the status quo). These 4 areas can be simplified into one; prosperity. The prosperity of a nation leads directly to improved standards in health care, standards of living, and longer life expectancies. For the majority of this country prosperity also leads to happiness. Many people's goal in life is to make money and that is what drives them and makes them happy. I stress that not all people are like that, but a majority of American's are and like I said we are talking about the majority of people, not one person. In no way do I advocate those people's lifestyles since money can't buy happiness. Unfortunately most people think it can and sadly this is a large reason why the suicide rate in our country is so high. Neither prosperity nor the implementation of NCLB can affect fortune, which can also be termed as luck. Therefore that leaves us with one goal of the pro. He is to show how NCLB improves the prosperity of our nation.

As con my job is to simply show why NCLB is not beneficial to the United States welfare.

First we will begin by looking at NCLB. As pro has pointed out, NCLB is designed to make schools and teachers more accountable. What he did not point out is that children's names and phone numbers are given to army recruiters. I believe my opponent will clearly say that an ideal form of NCLB will do away with this aspect, however if he does not, I don't see any way this can be a good thing. He also did not point out how the government goes about implementing NCLB. The government sets the precedent of what states and schools need to do, however the states define the standards. Basically, the better the schools combined test scores, the more money in the schools pockets. This gives large incentives to teachers to make sure their kids do well. And here is where I will begin my contentions.

1) States define the standards.
- The states are required to make a standardized test to test the schools within the state. The state is awarded money from the national government based on how well the students in the state do. This means that states are given the incentive to make their tests very easy so that they receive the maximum amount of funding possible. Missouri is admittedly one of these states. The goal of NCLB is to guarantee equal education for everyone, but the opposite effect has taken place with NCLB and that is bound to continue whether it's the current NCLB or an ideal form of it. With the lowering of standards, students are less likely to succeed in the workplace, which is bad for the prosperity of the United States.
http://cbs2chicago.com...

2) The use of standardized tests
- Standardized tests are mandatory to gauge a state as a whole, but are standardized tests a good thing? Standardized tests, especially NCLB inspired ones, cover a narrow area of learning. When teachers know that their jobs are on the line based on how well their class does on a test, they are inclined to teach to the test, rather than what the kids should be learning. Therefore kids receive a very narrow education. My junior year of high school, every junior had to take what is called the Dakota STEP test. Every core teacher, English especially, spent over a month talking about the test and test strategies rather than trying to improve the minds of the ones they taught. Our school took the test very seriously and everyone that improved on their 8th grade scores received a prize anywhere from movie rentals to a Wii. This was to assure that nobody made "Christmas trees" on their scantrons. I did in fact improve my score and received a free chalupa with 6 free movie rentals (I was the last student drawn before the four "big" prizes were drawn. Oh the inhumanity), but I did not learn anything in any of my classes for a month-plus because of the focus on these tests. Here is an article calling into question the use of standardized tests.
http://www.fairtest.org...

3) Schools receive funding based on scores
- This only serves as incentive for the school to remove students that do not perform as well on such tests. It also provokes states to set lower standards on their tests, which I have already touched on. Here is a link. I'd like to point your attention more notably to the bottom of the page and the chart. The chart shows the disparity of toughness between state tests and national tests. It's quite astonishing.
http://www.susanohanian.org...

Finally,
4) It costs money
- From 2001 (the time of implementation) to 2007, the department of education's budget has gone from $42.2 billion to $54.4 billion. $24.4 billion of that was given to NCLB. An ideal form would cost even more. A billion dollars of that is used for a program called "reading first". Statistics show that this program does not do its intended purpose, which is to improve the proficiency of reading in between the first and third grades. It did not accomplish its goal and the government is simply throwing away money we can't afford to lose. It cannot be said that spending like this, especially spending that gives no results like reading first, increases the prosperity of the country.
http://www.usatoday.com...
http://www.ed.gov...

That is all for this round. I eagerly await for my opponent to make arguments as to how NCLB can improve this nation's prosperity and the rebuttals of my case. I would also like to know how you created a hyperlink for your source since mine don't appear to be clickable. I would appreciate if you gave me an answer in the next round, but if you decide to take all 8,000 characters or just don't want me to know, I understand. Thanks.
Debate Round No. 1
Logical-Master

Pro

========================================================
DEFINITIONS:
========================================================

I have no objections to CON's definitions.

======================================================== CON's observations
========================================================

1)I agree with what my job is in this debate (as you'll note, this is essentially the same as my own observation in the first round). However, CON's remark about the implementation of NCLB having no effect pm the fortune of the nation is quite false. With NCLB perfectly achieving it's goal in better education, more citizens in general have more access to better jobs, hence beneficial from an economical perspective.

2) Furthermore, CON states that his job is to merely show that NCLB is not beneficial to the United States. However, as I've insinuated in R1, this is false. Ladies and gentleman, as you can see from the resolution, there is nothing to suggest that my job is to demonstrate how NCLB is beneficial ON BALANCE or IN GENERAL. Because of this, I can win this debate merely by showing how NCLB is in some way beneficial. Ergo, even if I fail to refute any negatives which CON points out, it shall not matter int he least as long as I successfully demonstrate benefits. It is CON who must refute any benefits which I provide. If you (the judges) even buy a single benefit, then I win the debate by default.

3) CON points out that NCLB requires children's names and phone numbers to be given to army recruiters. However, as he had guessed, I must point out that an ideal form of NCLB has no flaws. Thus, if this is in fact a flaw to normal NCLB, you must heed my first R1 observation and dismiss it immediately.

Since his last observation treads into his actual contentions, I shall continue responding below.

========================================================
RE: CON'S CONTENTIONS
========================================================

1) RE: "States define the standards."

A) CON is yet again guilty of ignoring the resolution as he points out a flaw that applies to normal NCLB. However, with an ideal NCLB program, there would be counter measures in place to insure that states do not make their tests very easy in the first place.

B) CON states that lower standards would apply to either the current form of NCLB or an ideal form, but never bothers to explain how this problem would still exist in an IDEAL form of NCLB (which, once again, is a form of NCLB that does not possess any shortcomings and exist within the imagination). In addition, there is nothing in his source which is applicable to an ideal form of NCLB either, so you can dismiss it entirely.

2) RE: "The use of standardized tests"

Once again, CON is blatantly ignoring the resolution. In an ideal form of NCLB, teachers would be able to teach students all of what they needed to learn while having the incentive not to slack off (or heck, teachers could simply not be informed of the format of the test until the students were taking them . . . whichever the case or details, I need not elaborate any further). We know this to be true as (and once again), ideal refers to a flawless system that exist within the imagination.

3) RE: "Schools receive funding based on scores"

And yet again, an argument which doesn't adhere to the resolution. In an ideal system, there would be countermeasures against any kind of incentive for the school to remove students that do not perform as well on test (schools having to report every student who gets removed to the state or some government organized institution would be one, but once again, I need not elaborate as the resolution forces us to assume that there are methods in place to prevent shortcomings).

4) " It costs money"

PRO states that an ideal form of NCLB would cost more money, but in an ideal form of NCLB, not only would the economical advantages of no child being left behind serve to make up for any spending in a long term perspective, but given that we're speaking in IDEAL terms, the amount of money used to stabilize the system would no doubt be planned in such a way that there is only a positive net gain.

Ladies and gentleman, what my opponent's case boils down to is problems which concern a non ideal version of NCLB. However, as pointed out by even my opponent, the resolution is flawed. This is because we're referring to a form of NCLB that is perfect while only existing in the imagination. I do not for one moment enjoy having this ridiculous advantage over my opponent, but nevertheless, I must argue with what I'm given. Of course, there is a way to argue against this case, but it most certainly doesn't involve citing precedent (which is all my opponent has managed to do).

========================================================
MY CASE
========================================================

My argument that a perfect form fo NCLB would increase education still stands. We must keep in mind that with increased education, individuals in general have more job opportunities, hence drastically benefiting the economy, not to mention allow the country more opportunities to improve in all areas (medicine, technology, industry, etc). Not to mention that better education allows indiivduals to function better in society (as already pointed out). In short, it's advantageous to the USA's welfare. CON has yet to dispute these benefits provided by an ideal system, thus there is no reason to vote in favor of him.

I now await CON's round 2.
NOK_Domination

Con

Observations:
1) He agrees that his job is to show that NCLB increases the prosperity of our nation. He later states that all he has to do is show one case in which NCLB could help. Increasing the prosperity of our nation does not entail simply showing one benefit, but rather if the benefits are bigger than the negatives. This makes his second observation void, since he states that all he needs to do is show one benefit when he clearly agrees he must show it increases the nation's prosperity.

2) This point is voided by his agreement in observation 1. It remains that my job is to show how NCLB is not beneficial.

3) Since Pro still carries the burden of proof, he is to show what an ideal for of NCLB would look like. Here he does not state that giving phone numbers and names to army recruiters is a flaw. I think it's increasingly clear that if he does not say that this is a flaw that it is to stand for an ideal form, since this is a large part in NCLB.

Rebuttal:

1) States define the Standards
- My opponent finally attempts to give an example of how an ideal form would work, albeit vague. He believes the national government would step in and help define the standards. The problem this runs into is the constitution. The 10th amendment says that any power not given to the national government is a reserved power given to the states. This would include setting the standard, especially education. If indeed an ideal form would allow the national government to step in, it would be unconstitutional. I would consider that being unconstitutional is not beneficial to the nation. I believe my opponent would agree that not violating the constitution is a good start for a law. As you can see there is no way to change this and that this is a problem that cannot be avoided; ideal state or not. This makes the opponents second point on this topic mute and re-instills the validity of my source, since this problem exists in any form of NCLB.

My opponent does not do anything to combat this problem, meaning it still stands. My argument from round 1 upholds. Please flow it into round 3.

2) The use of standardized tests
- Once again I stated that the use of standardized tests applies in both an ideal form and the current form. My opponent gave no ways this could be avoided. While this is an ideal form of the plan, ideal people are not involved. Teachers are humans and naturally they are going to do what they can to ensure their students do well on the test they are given. The current form isn't designed for teachers to teach to the test, but as humans they are inclined to do so. There is no way around this.

Once again my opponent doesn't refute this point and it goes hand-in-hand with the resolution since standardized tests are part of NCLB. My argument from round 1 upholds. Please flow it into round 3.

3) Schools receive funding based on scores.
- My opponent believes an ideal form would remove the benefits to remove poorly performing students. This means he'd remove performance based funding to schools, since this is what drives the schools to remove underachievers. The whole system of NCLB is predicated on the idea of performance based funding. Since he says it's a problem, then he's saying the system of NCLB is flawed. An ideal form of a system that is flawed does not mean the system is good. Remember that an ideal system doesn't mean that the teachers and administrators are perfect. They are humans, and they are inclined to do what's beneficial to them. If he is to remove the benefits of removing poorly performing students, then the system is a failure. I believe he realizes the problem he has presented himself.

I will concede this point and accept his argument, which means he is saying the idea of NCLB is flawed. Since the idea of NCLB is flawed, it doesn't matter whether the system is ideal or not. Once again, a perfect form of something flawed, is not a good thing. Please flow the argument that the idea of NCLB is flawed into round 3.

4) It costs money
- Since my opponent has given no ideas of what an ideal form would look like, one can only assume it will cost more as you look at progressive data. According to my source NCLB costs a lot of money and "improvements" would cost even more. In no way does my opponent show that this wouldn't happen. Since I gave actual data as opposed to opinion, my argument holds more weight.

My opponent did nothing to refute this point, therefore my case in round 1 stands. Please flow my fourth point from round 1 into round 3.

I have given points that both affect the current form of NCLB and an ideal form. I didn't simply give flaws in the laws of NCLB, but rather flaws in the ideology of NCLB. The ideology of NCLB is something that is part of NCLB in any form, thus they are flaws in NCLB which shows that NCLB is NOT beneficial to the welfare of the United States. I believe I have clearly given details and sources as to why NCLB won't work whereas my opponent has only given vague generalizations and has given no details as to how NCLB would be beneficial. I have clearly showed that the idea of NCLB is flawed and that is something even my opponent conceded in his third contention.

Thank you and I await my opponent to usher in the 3rd round. Good luck.
Debate Round No. 2
Logical-Master

Pro

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
NOK_Domination

Con

Observations:

1) It is pro's job to show that NCLB is beneficial to the welfare of the United States. In order to be beneficial, then it must increase the welfare. In round two my opponent agreed that it is his job to show how "NCLB improves the prosperity of our nation." I believe that decreasing the prosperity would be a bad thing and doesn't improve the prosperity. Increasing prosperity does improve the prosperity of our nation. Therefore it is pro's job to show that NCLB increases prosperity. He agreed with that in round 2. That is what the resolution boils down to and we both agreed that that's the definition of the resolution. He then says he only needs to show one benefit. That is not at all what he agreed to. He has yet to show that the prosperity of the United States would increase with an ideal form of NCLB.

2) Once again his second observation is voided, since he has agreed to different terms.

3) The burden of proof is a large part of debate and indeed has much to do with this. Since pro is advocating the change in status quo, he must provide how it will be implemented. He did no such thing in this debate and has failed what his job of being pro. He does concede that army recruiting would continue in an ideal form though. In the previous round I asked him to either denounce it or it is assumed that an ideal form would have it. This means that our kids are being bombarded by military recruiters constantly. It's definitely not increasing this nation's prosperity. I know I hate it when recruiters call me, plus those recruiters have to be paid. More employees = less money and therefore decreases prosperity.

Contentions:

1) States define the standards
- I'll just start out by defining the straw man fallacy.

Blaming something or somebody else.
Ex: Gas prices wouldn't be so high if we had another president in the White House.

I'm somewhat perplexed that he would attempt to cite me on this since I clearly didn't put blame on anyone or thing. Anyways, my opponent says there should be counter-measures, but who is going to set these? The state itself? Obviously states won't impose counter-measures on themselves. The only one that can step in is the national government if indeed you are so adamant about counter-measures. Like I said, that would be unconstitutional. Once again, there's no way around this and states will define the standards in any form of NCLB.

My opponent hasn't even tried to refute my objection in round 1. Please flow this contention through round 3.

2) Standardized Tests
- My opponent has given no reason as to another possibility to test for progress, therefore we must go with the current. He has the burden of implementation and he hasn't given anything better to test progress. I certainly can't think of any, therefore we must assume standardized tests will be used in an ideal form. This presents a problem since standardized tests aren't good as I stated in round 1.
If people aren't perfect, no matter how perfect the law is, it won't function perfectly. The resolution states that the law is perfect. Just because the law is perfect, doesn't mean it works perfectly. Teachers are still human and NCLB clearly gives incentives for those teachers to teach to the tests. He says NCLB should give incentives to not teach to the test, but that's not possible since NCLB basically says "your students do poorly, you didn't do your job, so you're fired." He also says that they shouldn't inform teachers of the format of the test prior. As it is, teachers aren't informed prior. Rather they take examples from previous years and expect it to be similar. Once again there is no way around this.

My opponent hasn't given a better way to test progress so the use of standardized tests still stands. He also doesn't refute any of the negatives of standardized testing which means he agrees that these tests are bad. My argument from round 1 upholds. Please flow it through round 3.

3) NCLB is flawed
- Once again I'm not sure strawman really fits here. Anyway, I conceded the performance based funding argument since my opponent clearly wanted the advantages of removing poor students to be done away with. This means he agrees an essential theme of NCLB should be done away with. Performance based funding was even a large part of his definition of NCLB. By removing performance based funding he is saying the concept of NCLB is flawed. He then insists he is talking about "counter-measures". Once again that brings a few questions. How do you counter-measure it? Pro has the burden of implementation. The national government is the only place the "counter-measures" can come from and that is unconstitutional. Therefore the only way I can think of to combat performance based funding is to do away with it. There are 3 options here; it's unconstitutional with counter-measures, it is completely done away with and NCLB is admittedly flawed, or performance based funding is bad and not beneficial to the welfare of the United States. Go ahead and pick any of the three you would like, but any way you look at it, they are all the opposite of beneficial.

4) It costs money
- My opponent says to cross apply his third argument. This doesn't at all refute my second round argument that it costs money. They are two completely different topics and he doesn't even begin to touch on this point.

Please carry this argument all the way through round 3 since my opponent doesn't try to argue against it.

All of my arguments have showed how NCLB is not beneficial and Con didn't even try to show anything positive about NCLB in his final round. Even before that, the only thing he said is that increasing education means that welfare is increased. However my arguments have shown that this actually decreases education in many sectors and directly bad for the prosperity of the USA since it costs a lot of money. My last thing is this: I have shown that NCLB is a bad thing. A perfect form of a bad thing doesn't make it beneficial. In fact it probably makes it more of a bad thing. Let's look at it this way. You have the joker who is a nemesis to batman. He is flawed and is a bad thing for the city of Gotham. Now imagine that possesses incredible super powers and is unstoppable. Now he is an ideal joker. He is a perfect form of him, but that's even worse for Batman and Gotham. NCLB is much the same. In its fundamental elements it is drastically flawed. Making a perfect form of a flaw only creates a bigger flaw. Whether it's ideal or not, NCLB is bad for the United States.

I would like to thank logical-master for this debate. It's been fun and good luck in your upcoming rounds.
Debate Round No. 3
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
Trendem, would you consider opening your private messages or adding me to your friend's list? As I am most interested in discussing your review. :D
Posted by trendem 7 years ago
trendem
I am deliberately biased against semantic arguments, because they hamper education and are unpersuasive in real life. My voting will reflect my bias.

C: Tie.
S & G: Tie.
Convincing Arguments: Con. Ideals can't accomplish the impossible. Pro claimed that something "ideal", by its very nature, would avoid a given flaw, but Pro had to show that it is possible to avoid said flaw. Pro did not do so. For eg., Pro did not demonstrate the possibility of an alternative agency that can set standards, or the possibility of an alternative to performance-based funding.

Pro also contended that the term "beneficial" in the resolution should be interpreted as at least one benefit, and not benefit on balance. I don't buy Pro's interpretation simply because it would make for a ridiculously one-sided and uneducational debate. Moreover, in common parlance, you can't get away with saying "Cancer is beneficial for you" just because cancer might have some isolated benefit. [I realized Con didn't make this argument]
S: Tie.
Posted by NOK_Domination 7 years ago
NOK_Domination
Yea I tend not to vote for my own debates either. I'd be interested in seeing what your idea of strawman is. I took the definition and example straight from my Comp 101 notes which was put together by a person with a doctrate on the subject of the english language. Although I dislike her as a proffessor (mostly because I hate essays, which she, like all english teachers, assigns). I hate throwing that out there since it's the last round and you had no chance to respond, but I just took what I've learned. But yes I'd be interested in seeing what your idea of it is.
Posted by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
Indeed that I am. That's the "P" aspect of my personality you're looking at. ;)
Posted by Yraelz 7 years ago
Yraelz
Yeah!
Posted by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
NOK, your understanding of the straw man fallacy is false. I'll send you a PM to explain in detail just so that judges may not be swayed by anything posted in the comment section.

Anyway, that wasn't me who voted just now. I'm so biased against myself erroneously performances, that I tend not to vote myself when I make them. Although I do think my R2 alone withstands everything you've thrown out, I simply cannot accept the length o stupidity combined with laziness that overcame me in R3.

Oh yeah, and thanks for the debate. :D
Posted by Yraelz 7 years ago
Yraelz
Yeah! you are a procrastinator!
Posted by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
Or maybe I'm just being paranoid considering I usually rely on long drawn out elaboration to get my points across.

Eh . . . oh well.
Posted by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
Just my luck too. :(
Posted by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
crappity crappity crap. My constant procrastination is going to lose me this tournament. :(

Hopefully, the judges understand my second round enough to know what I'm getting at. Otherwise, I may very well have lost the easiest debate in this tournament. :P
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by Kleptin 7 years ago
Kleptin
Logical-MasterNOK_DominationTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 7 years ago
Tatarize
Logical-MasterNOK_DominationTied
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 Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
Logical-MasterNOK_DominationTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by NOK_Domination 7 years ago
NOK_Domination
Logical-MasterNOK_DominationTied
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 VoodooChildJr 7 years ago
VoodooChildJr
Logical-MasterNOK_DominationTied
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 studentathletechristian8 7 years ago
studentathletechristian8
Logical-MasterNOK_DominationTied
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 grayron 7 years ago
grayron
Logical-MasterNOK_DominationTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Vote Placed by sabrafink 7 years ago
sabrafink
Logical-MasterNOK_DominationTied
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:61