The Instigator
Pro (for)
7 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
21 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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/25/2009 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 831 times Debate No: 7557
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (4)




Alright, I'm tired and I just finished arguing the con side so I'll make this quick. Definitions:
ideal = perfect
beneficial = advantageous
welfare = the good fortune, health, happiness, prosperity, etc., of a person, group, or organization

If you want to change these and cite a source then feel free. I just took these from last round and they're from, but really generalized.

Now to start, I'll get into a lot more detail in round 2.

So how would a perfect system be advantageous to the United States? That almost seems like a dumb question.

1) Increases education
- NCLB is designed to increase the education in public schools. Increased education = smarter people and better jobs. Better jobs = more money into peoples pockets, which then goes to the economy and provides more tax money. Therefore it is beneficial to the nations prosperity and makes people happy and keeps them healthy, since they can afford health care.

That is all for this round. I will add much more in round 2, but for now this is really all I need. It's hard to argue a perfect form of education is not beneficial to the United States.


Sorry for the late post. Nevertheless, good luck!

I negate, Resolved: An ideal form of No Child Left Behind would be beneficial for the United States.

*Clarification: From now on, "No Child Left Behind" will be referred to as "NCLB"

I'll accept your definitions except ideal. Rather than using the idea of being perfect, I want to use the idea of being the best it can be.

CONTENTION ONE: *If NCLB successful, the job market would become unrealistic.

---Let's say for example that everyone's education level was determined on a scale of 1-10 and NCLB worked perfectly by obtaining everyone's education at a realistic 8 or above. The problem that this poses is that if you factor in all jobs, people with a higher education will tend to not get jobs that are below-average when there are jobs that pay more that they are overly-capable of obtaining. What I'm trying to get at, is that if we are to ‘not leave anyone behind', then the jobs that left behind people have been employed under would not see any workers. The job market would be extremely competitive at the top, and the polar opposite on the bottom. This is something that obtains to ‘benefits' for anyone.

CONTENTION TWO: NCLB will always fail, ideal or not.

---There are 2 huge barriers for NCLB to cross before it ever obtains benefits:

1) Proactively getting children to WANT to learn, and,
2) The system to check the institutions.

---Now, I urge my opponent to show any sort of ideal system that could legislate children to care about education. Children these days are apathetic toward learning, so no piece of legislation, ideal or not, will be able to overturn this. Then where, I ask, do we get our benefits when before, children who don't care don't learn, and after, children who don't care don't learn? It's a completely neutral net-benefit. Particularly with pathetic Nation wide tests (such as the NAEP test) that all students consider to be one big joke. Furthermore, the checks on the systems who teach these students need a complex system of checks that is truly unobtainable. Yes, we assume the NCLB is ideal in this debate, however, a perfect system will still have its flaws. Let me explain. There is system A, and B. And there is flaw 1, 2 and 3. Now, if you go with system A, you get flaw 2. But if you go with system B, you get flaw 1. You might say, go with what works with both of them, but then you get flaw 3.
-APPLICATION: If you try to fix the obvious flaws in NCLB, you will find an impossible mid-ground. You might try and fix the system by making it so that firing of teachers is not so high. This would get the benefit of teachers being under less pressure, but at the same time would make it so that teachers didn't care if they met the appropriate standards.

This argument leads to the conclusion of,

CONTENTION THREE: There is no one ideal system.

---I assume that if this system was found, it would be equal. But that is the true problem with NCLB, is that it fails to adjust to each school. EG: My school has gotten a lot of immigrants that just don't care now we have a bunch of bad grades and a bunch of drop outs. There should be an exception for us, but not even an ideal form of NCLB would create this exception. Why? Because ‘we are still leaving students behind' and ‘we are simply getting more kids in our system like everyone else'. Furthermore, you can compare this to the ghetto, or even the polar opposite. All of these institutions require different standards, yet, NCLB tries to standardize all of them identically. This does not obtain any objective benefits since each of them receive subjective costs.


---"School districts, states, and stakeholders have sued the federal government for enforcing an "underfunded mandate" that requires them to meet proficiency and attendance levels without providing what they believe are necessary funds to do so. For several years the fight has gone on with seemingly no hope for conclusion… among the four states, per pupil spending would have to increase between .4 percent and 38 percent ($12,797 and $8,635, respectively) to reach 70 percent proficiency and 16 percent and 58 percent ($7,078 and $10,283, respectively) to reach 90 percent proficiency. States with relatively high achievement required the smallest spending increases, while those with low achievement required larger increases. This analysis suggests states are not spending nearly enough to bring 100 percent of students to proficiency."

-Now certainly you could say that an ideal form of NCLB would create more funding, but how much benefit are you getting out of this new education when it isn't allowing people to get better jobs (high market), AND it really isn't allowing people to get more education per dollar (apathetic students). It is simply not net-beneficial, and is a waste of our time. Let the student decide, don't let the government overstretch it's arms to say what we must and mustn't do.

My opponent's case:

---He has yet to show how the system would help education. Yes, you have an ‘ideal form' of NCLB, but you don't have ideal education. If I made the perfect game, there would still be people who suck at playing it. I urge my opponent to show how this ‘perfect system' would be able to force students to learn, or would outweigh the economic costs displayed in C4.

---You can't have better jobs for everyone. At some point you have to cut back (which is not advantageous for the people who didn't get the job they are capable of doing) or you will see terrible economic results (like no one being able to go to the grocery store because no one works there).

---Theoretically? Yes. Realistically? No. If everyone got 1 trillion dollars a year, then inflation would rise significantly to make it so that the money canceled each other out. Basic economic idea is that printing more money gets more money but makes it less legitimate and makes the economy a net-cost.

-None of my opponents points stand! I furthermore reserve the right to add and change my arguments in round 2!

Thanks and good luck!
Debate Round No. 1


Ok, I would like your response to be in a timely manner. Like within an hour of me posting mine.

Ideal - adj.
- conceived as constituting a standard of perfection or excellence
- existing only in the imagination; not real or actual

Definitions from Ideal = perfect.

Opponent's case:


-- What would we do if everyone was too smart? There'd be way too much competition for a job. We gotta keep some dumb people around. The resolution states that NCLB would be beneficial to the USA welfare, not an individuals welfare. While it may be true that people are overqualified to be working as a trash collector or a fast food, this is a very good thing for the United States. Also, the hotly contested jobs get an even better employee when they have so many people to choose from. With a great education everyone can do their jobs to the fullest. This is definitely a great "problem" to have.


1) Students want to learn

-- With a perfect form of education it would both be fun and rewarding for students to learn. I think most people like having fun, unless you're emo (I really hope the judge isn't emo), so wanting to learn would be instilled into every kid. Well, unless you're the aforementioned emo, but then I guess you can do our dirty jobs that con seems to think would be a huge problem. Ideal = fun. Fun = want - emo.

2) Checks and balances

-- It's perfect meaning there are no flaws in the law. I have no idea how this would be accomplished, but let's go back to the definition of ideal. 1. It is perfect. 2. Exists only in imagination. Nobody knows how this would be accomplished since it can only be dreamt up, but it will be perfect. If indeed NCLB is perfect, then a complex system of checks must be in place that is perfect.


-- I don't know where you're going when you bring up the ghetto. The Germans didn't educate the Jews and certainly didn't have NCLB. Once again perfect = fun. Your lazy immigrants won't drop out if education is fun. We can assume that the system in its perfection has no dropouts. If there are no dropouts then everything is fair.


-- If indeed the system is perfect then funding will be a non-issue. Money doesn't create education ( I don't know how perfection works, but it would undoubtedly get 100% performance with a minimum budget. Even if it did take a large budget to get 100% performance (which it does get, since it is working perfectly) then the money generated would more than cover it. A high market, as con puts it, is great for the country. It may not allow people to get better jobs, but it drastically increases the productivity of the jobs they get. More productivity = more money.

My case:

1) Increase of education

- I would probably be on Capitol Hill if I knew how to make education perfect. A perfect form of NCLB meets its goals 100%. If its goal is to increase education, then education will be increased. If learning is fun then people want to learn (except emos; they don't like fun).

2) Smarter people, better jobs

- People might not get better jobs, but the resolution doesn't care. It's not "An ideal form of NCLB would be beneficial to a 4.0 student trying to find a job." Beneficial to the USA. If people are smarter, then the jobs that they do will be done way better. People would undoubtedly work at the grocery store and these people would be smarter with the increase of education brought about by NCLB. That means that your groceries would be sacked perfectly and you would never have a bag break. The less bag breaks you have, the less you'll have to buy at the store to replace such items. The less you spend at the store, the more you can spend elsewhere which means more mullah in la economia. Great economy = good for the USA.

3) Better jobs, more money

- He agrees that it is theoretically true. We're not debating as realists, but rather as what-if-ists. What would happen if everyone was a genius? We'd get more money. If everyone had a trillion dollars there would be inflation, but not proportional to the increase of one's worth. Since the USA is smarter than every other country, it is then making money off of other countries and not simply printing money to print (as Obama is fond of). The money isn't just coming from the USA, but from global economy. With a brilliant workforce the value of the dollar would be strong internationally. Since a lot of our products are non-domestic, their price would stay relatively the same, but everyone would have more money. Yes there would be slight inflation because if everyone were trillionaires, some money would have to be printed, but the value of the dollar would stay globally unchanged or even improved. So he agrees theoretically with this one. I guess it's a dropped argument. If you try to defend yourself on this topic you automatically lose.

-I don't see how agreeing with me on the last topic means that it no longer stands... Anyways I have reinstated all my points and toppled his. I would now like to add more evidence or arguments or whatever you'd like to call it (I personally view it 100% God spoken truth that cannot be refuted).

My case: The Sequel

I will continue numbering from above

4) My opponent
- My opponent is Native American and has very little credibility when it comes to education. His people are among the worst when it comes to school (I really hope the judge isn't Native. Or worse, Native emo). Would you take educational advice from somebody that is only 1 out of 2 of his people to graduate? I certainly wouldn't.
Source: (I would encourage you to read all 243 pages of this book) (Please read all 431 pages)

If my opponent fails to refute every point in both of those books, then this is a dropped argument.

-- In most of my opponent's contentions he refers to how NCLB could be bad for individuals. That's not the resolution. Would it be better for the United States? Clearly yes. If everyone was a genius then people will likely get the same jobs they would've gotten prior to perfect education, but they would do their jobs much better; and the people that live off the government (natives) would actually get jobs. If everyone does their job better then it's good for the USA. Therefore ideal NCLB is good for the USA and the resolution is upheld.

Thank you and please respond immediately. If you don't respond within an hour, it's a forfeit.


Johnicle forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


His native laziness has caught up with him. Please extend all my arguments.


I would first like to apologize to my opponent... my internet crashed at my house, thus I was not able to type it when I had planned and consequently I forfeited round 2, however, not the debate :D

---My opponent really fails to see the objective harm here, and only looks to the subjective "benefit". But the problem is, that he gets neither. If you look to NCLB, its goal is to simply put everyone up to par. But if everyone has that amount of education, there will be too great of a competition of jobs and worse problems will result, AND no one would be willing to work the lower end jobs. This will create an economic crisis (objective) AND will cause problems on the individual level (subjective). My opponent refutes neither of these, please flow these through.

1) Students will STILL be apathetic.
---My opponent starts to argue that NCLB will make learning fun, but there are 4 problems with this. A) Some students will still not care even if it is fun, and B) Some teachers just can not be fun. Just like you can not get some students to learn, you can't get all teachers to make it enjoyable. There will always be that boring professor or teacher that just goes off of a book or power point, and C) NCLB can't legislate fun. There is nothing more laughable than forced 'fun', and D) It does not allow the teachers to be free in the way they teach. Certainly we should strive for 'entertainment', but this is neither appropriate for all (like AP Classes), nor does it allow the teacher to choose what is appropriate. Finally, the system being ideal, doesn't make the results ideal. And if it DOES, my contention 1 argument comes into play. My opponent is now sent down one of two roads, the road that does not help educate, OR, the road that educates all, but therefore increases job competition with good jobs and no one taking low spectrum jobs.

2) Perfect checks, does not mean perfect balance.
---The NAEP test seems to be pretty ideal in checking if people are smart, however, our school didn't care and bombed it. Now certainly there could be some incentives placed in for students to achieve an idealistic program, but there will still be flaws. For example, teachers will 'teach to the test', losing some true value in education. Also, the incentives will always 'not be good enough' for some (scholarships for people not going to college, or a Play Station 3 for someone who already has one). There will always be a flaw in the education, thus the benefits are not guaranteed, and since the resolution presupposes inevitable benefits, you must vote con since you can never be sure if you get these.

---My opponent once again misses the intention of my argument. I say that we can not make one system applicable for all (LIKE people in the ghetto and people in rich neighborhoods). These people need more than just ONE ideal system, they need THEIR ideal system. (Flow through)

---More money = high inflation. This makes your argument useless and once again my argument is pulled through. We need the worse jobs in order to get the food that we buy, or even the cars we buy. But yet these high standards that NCLB creates aims to goals that are unrealistic AND undesirable. Our economy could not support 300 million people with 100k a year jobs (or more) while at the same time have no one supporting the low spectrum jobs. More productivity (with better jobs) = more money but does not = a better economy.

His Case:

1) Increase of education.

---Cross-Apply all of my arguments. This is basically the debate.

2) Smarter people = people not settling for bad jobs.

---If you look to Japan, they have great education, everyone is really smart. However, the supply and demand (if you will) for jobs is WAY too high. Now, the suicide rate in Japan is extremely higher then ours. Now, do we really want to fall into that? (no)... Furthermore, even you admit that you won't settle for a bad job because you are smarter than that, well what if we had millions more just like you? There would no longer be any jobs for the smart Americans to have anymore.

3) More money

---My opponent does not understand the economy. Look to my other arguments.

4) I'm Native.

---Only 6%.
---According to him, Natives will never learn and will always drop out. That means not even the ideal system of NCLB will help them :D
---The books hold no weight. So it's a dropped argument that means nothing at the end of this round.

For all of these reasons, I urge you to vote CON!

(I would like to once again apologize for forfeiting a round. But I guess we both got 2 full speeches in which in this case sufficed)

Thank you!
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by NOK_Domination 7 years ago
You're not getting fast at anything. Jeez it takes you forever to post an argument.
Posted by Johnicle 7 years ago
30 minute speech. I'm getting way to fast at typing and DDO arguing! :D
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by NOK_Domination 7 years ago
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 Glitchy 7 years ago
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 YukaYuka2486 7 years ago
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 Johnicle 7 years ago
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