The Instigator
Johnicle
Pro (for)
Losing
14 Points
The Contender
dvhoose
Con (against)
Winning
28 Points

Resolved: An ideal form of No Child Left Behind would be beneficial to the welfare of the U.S.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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: 1,631 times Debate No: 7437
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (6)

 

Johnicle

Pro

I would like to wish my opponent good luck with this debate and with the tournament in general.

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

Clarification: No Child Left Behind = NCLB

OBSERVATION: ‘Ideal' defined and applied
---From: http://dictionary.reference.com...
---Ideal: "a conception of something in its perfection"
-Therefore, within this resolution, all that I have to prove is that NCLB is beneficial for the United States under its perfect condition. To examine this, I will look to the intentions of NCLB, and when they are carried through successfully, it benefits the United States.

CONTENTION 1: NCLB is not in its ideal form under the status quo.
---From: http://harvardcitizen.com...
--- "It's a great idea, but the supports necessary in order for schools to reach that performance level are not in place."
-What this means is that when affirming this resolution, the NCLB policy will only increase the welfare of the United States.

CONTENTION 2: NCLB has good intentions.
---From: http://harvardcitizen.com...
---"NCLB has good intentions: It aims to improve teacher quality, provide school choice for families, and hold schools accountable for academic achievement. It does this last bit by measuring kids' performance in grades 3-11. Additionally, results must be reported in such a way that demographic groups are reported separately. This way, a school can't make progress with some groups, while leaving others behind. This disaggregated data reveals the performance by ethnic identification, income level, and disability status. It has the capacity to shed light on the dark corners of discrimination that has been historically reinforced by our multi-tiered school system."

CONTENTION 3: An ideal form of NCLB would benefit education and overall, the welfare of the United States.
---From: 74.125.95.132 (let me know if this doesn't work)
--- "The South Dakota Superintendents Association (SDSSA) acknowledges the good intentions of the No Child Left Behind Federal legislation. SDSSA recognizes the positive role it has had in focusing schools on standards-based reform, accountability, data-based decision making, research-based instructional strategies and the needs of individual students... At the same time we recognize this legislation has serious flaws... These flaws substantially undermine NCLB's intent and foster practices that will interfere with the ability of schools and districts to raise all students to a meaningful level of proficiency."
---The proposition of SDSSA then continues on to point out flaws and ways to fix them. This just shows there are flaws, but that doesn't mean that an ideal form would not solve these. Therefore, I advocate that an ideal form of NCLB would successfully:

1) Standardize a high quality of teachers.
2) Hold improper educational facilities accountable to their improper actions.
3) Target facilities that improperly teach students to adequate levels.

-Therefore, education in the United States would be substantially increased. Because of this, the welfare in general would as well be increased, thus I urge you to affirm the resolution.
dvhoose

Con

I thank my opponent for the luck, and will return the favor. Good luck, Johnicle, with this debate and the tournament. I'd also like to thank my opponent for a well thought out case, and hope I can answer with equally good, if not better, responses ;)

With that said, I'll go ahead and refute my opponent's case.

OBSERVATION: I'll go ahead and accept my opponent's definition of 'ideal'. However, ideal is a vague word because there are always at least two schools of thought on any idea. For instance, abortion. Ideally, one group of people would have it outlawed forever. On the other hand, another group of people would have to legalized forever. Ideally, who's right? We'll never know, thus while ideal is an easy word to define, it's a hard concept to grasp. Our ideas of perfection differ greatly.

CONTENTION 1: I'll concede that NCLB is not ideal.

CONTENTION 2: I'll concede that NCLB has good intentions as well. But, lots of things have good intentions that a lot of people would find wrong. If we want to eradicate AIDS, we could simply take everyone with the disease and isolate them, or execute them. Good intentions? Yes, we're eradicating AIDS. Good idea? No... as humans we find that morally repugnant and as Americans, that destroys their rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...

CONTENTION 3: And ideal form of NCLB would NOT benefit education and overall, the welfare of the U.S.

First off, we're talking about an ideal form of NCLB, and NOT an ideal education system.

A) Students today are apathetic in school [1]
-- Schools are competing with things like Facebook, Myspace, music, anything else on the internet, etc. Going to school, where instead of engaging, fun, educational learning is taking place, schools are stressed to make AYP on tests. This contributes to apathy even more, and a regression in society begins, where few understand the benefit of an education and even fewer choose to take it.
* An ideal form of NCLB would put stress on schools because NCLB would have to prove an improvement in learning, through tests, and raising the bar would be necessary.

B) NCLB tests teachers, not students.
-- NCLB tests grade levels, and compares that to the grade levels of years past. This only tests the teachers ability to teach compared to the students willingness to learn. This doesn't improve America's education system. And if you want to argue that ideally we'd test the same group of kids over their education years, that's not good because it allows earlier students an easier road than those later (My class wouldn't have to reach as difficult of standards as, say, this year's kindergardeners). That's not justice, not fair, not what America is based on.

I'll leave it at this, and see my opponent's counter arguments.

--SOURCES--
[1] http://www.itsyourtimes.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Johnicle

Pro

Thanks... good luck

OBSERVATION: The problem with this observation is that it overpasses the intent of the resolution. When ideal is used, it puts the resolution where it should be. In other words, the debate is about, "Can the best form of NCLB actually help us?". However, this observation says that we could never find the ideal form, but that is not what the debate is about. Therefore, prefer my interpretation where I beg the judges to look to the intentions of NCLB and how when they are carried out it benefits the most amount of people.

CONTENTION 1: Ok... It was more of clarification anyway. But pull this argument through as it shows how the ideal form would be better than the current status quo system.

CONTENTION 2: My opponent says intentions does not mean good results. But fails to show how this applies to NCLB. Furthermore, if you look to an ideal form of NCLB, all it does (assumably) is look to teachers and make sure they are qualified and that they are doing their job. The problem is that the checks on these teachers are currently weak (C1)... The ideal form of NCLB would improve these checks and overall WOULD benefit the United States.

CONTENTION 3: Correct, we are talking about an ideal form of NCLB. Just like we are talking about NCLB being beneficial to education, not making education perfect. This argument is therefore irrelevant.

Furthermore, flow through my evidence that has the South Dakota Superintendents say very specifically the flaws of NCLB, then go on to show how it could be fixed. This shows that there is a way to fix it. Furthermore flow through my argument (on the bottom of C3) where I show how an ideal of NCLB would successfully:

1) Standardize a high quality of teachers.
2) Hold improper educational facilities accountable to their improper actions.
3) Target facilities that improperly teach students to adequate levels.
I would also like to add 4) Target the students who are not properly learning.

1) Cross-apply the argument from C3 where I explicitly show that the resolution asks us to benefit the welfare of the U.S., it does NOT however say that I have to show that education would now be perfect. All that an ideal form of NCLB would do is give the students who do not learn much the BEST CHANCE to succeed. And with this chance to learn going up, we WOULD benefit the U.S. More people learning = benefit to the U.S. welfare. I urge my opponent to show anything different.

2) This only shows that a few students would not learn. I agree. But by meeting the 4 things that would happen with an ideal form of NCLB, more students would learn. Even if only ONE more student learns, then the welfare of the U.S. would be increased. Of course, however, with checks on teachers, schools, and students, more than one student would be benefited.

---I don't think we could adequately debate WHAT the ideal form of NCLB would include. But I would assume that it doesn't put life or death stress on educational facilities like it does now. Furthermore, it wouldn't be 'raising' the bar, it would be establishing the bar. Something that the United States has failed to provide before.


---NCLB does target the students through targeting the teachers. For example: Student A, B, and C are learning fine, but student D is not. NCLB would ensure that student D would be given an equal opportunity when compared to the rest of the students. It would make sure that all students can adequately have the opportunity to learn, and it would make sure that teachers didn't simply shun the students they did not want to teach. Certainly student D probably doesn't care, but NCLB would make sure that student D had the exact same chance as everyone else. Or perhaps it would make it so the teacher gives them private lessons if necessary. Some students learn differently than others, our goal is to teach all, and an ideal form of NCLB would accomplish this.

I therefore urge you to vote PRO!

Thank you and good luck!
dvhoose

Con

OBSERVATION: My kritik on the word "ideal" is relevant. If we were taking the recent NFL LD resolution on vigilantes, we see that it doesn't matter at what point the government has failed, we must only accept that the government has failed. This is a whole different story, especially when you look to my arguments. Basically, we don't know what form the ideal NCLB would take. My arguments are based off of proving that any form of NCLB would hurt the welfare of the U.S. What is NCLB's perfect condition? No clue. How can my opponent argue that the idea of an idea will help the U.S?

CONTENTION 1: You can't pull this argument through judges unless you disagree with all of my attacks on C3. I'm arguing that no form of NCLB could help the United States, and thus, the ideal form provides no benefits over the current form.

CONTENTION 2: My argument on C2 was that it's easy to say that NCLB has good intentions. I seriously doubt anyone wants to see the U.S. fail, especially those who lead the nation. Said leaders wouldn't attempt to sabotage our country, and thus it's easy to conclude that NCLB has good intentions. However, proof that good intentions don't necessarily mean benefits is in the current NCLB act. It's been dismal! Simply saying that NCLB in its ideal form would be beneficial because... its ideal... is circular logic and places no burden on the PRO while placing all of it on the CON. But I digress... NCLB having good intentions is only relevant to this debate to the extent that it proves we're trying to fix the education system.

CONTENTION 3: My clarification on this debate being only on NCLB is relevant to this debate because anytime teachers are forced to make measured gains at the risk of a job, it retracts from school being a fun, engaging experience. NCLB forces teachers to focus on nothing but passing these tests. If you've ever messed up because you were TOO focused on something, you know what I'm talking about. Great examples come from sports. Why do football teams take a time our before a field goal attempt? To make the kicker think about the kick that much longer? Why do people taunt others with things like 'don't miss!' and 'no pressure!'? Simple; it adds pressure where, under ordinary circumstances, little pressure would be found. If you want to play those off as harmless jokes with no significance, expand them until the difference between success and failure is a job. Look at today's job market. Now tell me its not a big deal.

The South Dakota Superintendent's opinions really can't help much. For instance, republicans and democrats have their own ways of dealing with the economy. Their ideas are totally opposite, and yet they have the same goal in mind: better the country. Whose to say that those ideas expressed are the best ideas to fix NCLB. Authority has been wrong before, so using his experience isn't valid either. Exxon Mobile, AIG (with their recent expenditure controversy), Bear Sterns, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, etc. all examples of huge businesses that went south really quickly despite experienced leaders.

1) I'm not asking for the education system to be perfect. And increasing odds don't necessarily mean a benefit for the U.S. What are the chances of winning the lottery? We'll be nice and say 1 in a million. I don't win the lottery. If I reduce those odds to 1 in 500,000, and still don't win the lottery, I haven't done anything.

2) Our ideas on education come from our parents. Actually, most of our ideas on life in general come from our parents. If education isn't sold as a valuable resource by the time a kid is in school, we've basically missed an opportunity. Are there exceptions, yes. But they're exceptions, not the norm. Those who don't care about education never will, and we end up regressing in society waiting on those who lag behind to... still lag behind, while we say we aren't leaving them behind. Of course we aren't leaving them behind... we aren't letting anyone get ahead! This destroys America's ingenuity and actually hurts the country. Any form of NCLB will do this. Even an ideal one. Any time you place someone's bread and butter in the hands of another group of people (a teacher's job in the hands of his/her students) you set yourself up for failure.

Exactly, we can't know what the ideal from would include. It's my job to take any angle and prove how it wouldn't. When you rule out all the possibilities, it's easy to see that no NCLB is the best option.



Simply providing opportunities for students isn't enough. Refer to the apathetic students argument, and students don't really want to be at school. The problem with this now is that lets take a random class as an example. We'll call them class A, and they are a graduating class (for clarification). This class has 100 people in it. 75 of them are excellent students, and gain proficient or above on the state assessments. Class B (the graduating class below class A) has lived in class A's shadow for their entire lives. They don't care, they'll never be as good as class A. This class also has 100 students, but only 30 of them pass proficient or above. Must be a bad teacher, right? It's easy to see this isn't the case. Testing teachers is the wrong way to go about improving education in the U.S.

However, so is testing graduating classes. Take Class A again. They started out with 50 students making proficient or above. Now they're at 75. Class B, however, started out with 15 making proficient or above and are at 30. Is it fair to allow class B to be put into the same society as class A? No! Something went wrong here. Obviously testing by graduating class isn't a good idea either...

No matter which way you cut it, NCLB is an all-around bad idea. No form, ideal or not, could benefit America.
Debate Round No. 2
Johnicle

Pro

Thank you and good luck.

At this point, line-by-line will be redundant and non-beneficial. Therefore I will be summarizing and throughout the speech tell you why I win.

My burden of proof is to show that the most ideal form of NCLB is beneficial. Even if it is a slight benefit, I ought to win. To be honest, my opponent failed to truly negate the resolution and go at the true core of the debate… NCLB. He says that NCLB will be bad, but the only argument he provides as to why is that students are apathetic. But as I've shown, it gives more opportunity. With this I provided how the lack of this opportunity fails several students as of right now (like in the ghettos). At this point, you must vote pro because there is an inevitability that at least one student will learn because of this (flow this through as previously argued).

As far as ideal goes, I have shown how the current NCLB is not the ideal form. Several people have problems with it, and these problems are the exact same things that my opponent argues as to why it would not be beneficial. He says that it puts too much pressure on teachers well the ideal form would presumably not (perhaps a second chance clause or a re-evaluation or re-education clause). He also states the problem of pressure, but the ideal form of NCLB would be a check, not an overriding barrier of if you get funding or not like it is today. There are flaws now, but these can be over come. In fact, my South Dakota Superintendants argument filters right into this same idea. They have not only found the flaws, but showed several ways of how to fix them. He gives no problem that is unfixable, let alone show how these unfixable problems outweigh the inherent benefits. Another reason to vote pro.

In the end, look to the intent. And although I agree that perfect intent does not mean perfect success, you must also look to the fact that this can very well help many people. Furthermore, the intent of NCLB can very well be carried out (South Dakota Superintendents) There has yet to be an argument on the good intent, which is why if we try to achieve whatever this ideal form of NCLB is, we will benefit the United States very much.

Because I am the only one to look to a beneficial vs. non-beneficial comparison, and because an ideal form of NCLB would obviously benefit the United State, I urge the judges to vote pro!

Thank you for this great debate!
dvhoose

Con

I'll follow suit and summarize my case and explaining why I should win this debate.

My objective is to prove that an ideal form of NCLB would not be beneficial to the welfare of the U.S., whether that mean it has no effect OR it harms the U.S. If there is no net gain, or even a net loss, I should win this debate. When you look to the merits of my arguments, and how testing simply won't benefit anyone, it's clear that there is no benefit from NCLB, ideal or not.

We all know tests aren't fun. Nobody wakes up monday morning and goes "YES!!! Today I have a test in EVERY subject!" It just doesn't happen. And when you compare it to the alternative (ANYTHING you could do at home, or even playing games/watching movies in class) tests become even less interesting. Because funding is distributed based on performance on these tests, schools have had to cut out many fun aspects of school in order to focus on these tests. An ideal form would still have to rely on these tests (if only a little) and thus school would stay a boring place.

Now when you cram hundreds of teens into a school, and tell them that the school's future is based on the performance on a test, there's no incentive for them to do well. Many don't care about the school. There's no incentive. You could argue that ideally there would be an incentive, but none are really plausible or even possible. And ever if there was one, it still wouldn't combat the negatives of the apathy. The current school-going generation doesn't value education the same way its parents, grandparents, or great-grandparents did. A free and public education has lost its meaning. I know... I'm a part of it, and I see it everyday I go to school.

When making your decisions, judges, I ask that you look at NCLB and decide, based on the above arguments, whether it could ever have a beneficial effect on the U.S.

Then look to the fact that the bill has been around since 2001 and it STILL looks like it does today... Congress either likes NCLB as is, or can't realistically do anything to fix it....

Thanks for the great debate, and I urge a CON ballot!
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
You've just practically stated that it would be a push. With no flaws, we have to conclude that the system's means are executed perfectly, but that it executes its goals perfectly as well. Given that it's goals is to allow more individuals to be successfully educated, this is no doubt beneficial. If you're going to argue that these goals are of no benefit to the US, good luck. That said, I do see a way to win this debate as CON, but it still doesn't change the facts as to whether or not one side is at an unfair advantage.
Posted by zach12 7 years ago
zach12
yeah i wish i could have debated this on the con side, had some good arguments but oh well
Posted by Johnicle 7 years ago
Johnicle
When I debate CON... I will reveal a few arguments that are extremely true... we'll just have to see how they work I guess.
Posted by dvhoose 7 years ago
dvhoose
Logical-Master, while it's true that an ideal form of NCLB would have no flaws, this doesn't necessarily mean that NCLB would benefit US education. CON has to show why NCLB is either a push or harmful for the US education system... not necessarily one-sided
Posted by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
It's onesided for PRo. An ideal form of NCLB has no flaws, hence not debatable unless you've leveled up enough to learn semanticaga.
Posted by Johnicle 7 years ago
Johnicle
Which way is it one sided? I can't wait to be con! and pro is fine as well. just think about it.
Posted by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
Johnicle, any reason you choose this particularly one sided resolution? :D
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by atheistman 7 years ago
atheistman
JohnicledvhooseTied
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 dvhoose 7 years ago
dvhoose
JohnicledvhooseTied
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
JohnicledvhooseTied
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
Johnicle
JohnicledvhooseTied
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 littlelacroix 7 years ago
littlelacroix
JohnicledvhooseTied
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 philosphical 7 years ago
philosphical
JohnicledvhooseTied
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