Public high school students in the US ought not be required to pass standardized test exams to gradu

======== Counterplan ======== 1. The counterplan requires exams. Without exams, the ability to switch schools is pointless because there is no way to measure which is better at educating. 2. That isn't a 'framework' argument. It isn't an argument at all... I addressed it under my case. 3. He says to 'extend' an argument that I've already rebutted. Extend my rebuttal here as well. We run the government, it doesn't run us. "Harrison says so" doesn't do much to prove otherwise. Also, he is completely misrepresenting what Mark Harrison says. The quote reads: "The politicians do not have the strong incentives to innovate or encourage good teaching." This doesn't mean that the government is "inherently bad" like he says. It just means we need stronger incentives. The CP provides stronger incentives in the form of parents moving their kids to different schools. It doesn't matter anyway, because if the problem is with the politicians, like I said before, we vote for new politicians, ones who will fix the problem. Or get active. Protest, send your senator an email, anything. In a democracy, we have the power over the government. ======= Framework ======= 1. It takes a ton of time and effort to be sure that each student is in the 'correct' district currently. We no longer have to collect water bills/electric bills/etc to verify residency. I fail to see how he fails to see how this saves money. 2. This isn't an argument. He is pretty much saying "it's wrong because of all my other arguments." I'll address those as I come to them. ======= Subpoint 1 ======= 1. And my point is that we are entitled to reciprocity in debate. PRO clearly makes claims such as, "For a country so advanced, the U.S.'s numbers shouldn't be so low." which certainly entail comparing other countries to reach a conclusion. If he can do that, he can't say that I can't! 2. The affirmative's burden is to prove the resolution true, i.e. we ought not have exams. You can't advocate nothing. Even regardless of that, this argument doesn't make sense. Your criterion is ending government monopoly. You can't say "I don't have to advocate ending monopoly" and still win by your own criterion. ======= Subpoint 2 ======= 1. A. "he can magically fiat into existence politicians who want to have high standards" = Elections B. There is always some amount of 'fiat' anyway in debates. His side relies on it more than mine does! It's FAR more reasonable that congress would agree to raising the standards on exit exams than ending government education. C. "politics always wins out over principle" except that my CP forces the politicians to act. There's an incentive now. D. This is just pessimism. Imagine a pre-Civil War northerner saying "well, the government's just gonna allow slavery forever; I guess it's inevitable..." 2. No. Low standards simply means that we are only ensuring the basics. This is irrelevant, since we'll raise standards. 3. Objective standards (CON) > no standards (PRO). Knowing whether kids can do the basics > knowing nothing. ======== Contention 2 ======== 1. He's basically saying: If we could negate, that's fine, but my evidence says that our government won't. My argument, then is: We can't affirm even if we want to, because the government likes power too much to give it up. We're not debating whether the government will pass our plans. We are debating which plan is more desirable for the government to pass. Either way, mine is much more likely than his, anyway, so you can turn this argument. Is the government more likely to make the test a little harder or give up control of education? You decide. 2. "politics wins out over principle" Politics = catering to voters Voters want exam standards raised Politics wins out over principle Thus, exam standards are raised ---------- My Case ---------- ======== Contention 1 ======== 1. My entire argument is that we should continue gov't monopoly, yet here my opponent concludes "My opponent don't advocate an abolition of private schools thus he obviously don't have a problem with them retaining that right." 2. Not sure what he means by "vouchers." In private schools, you have to pay the most to get into the best schools. In public schools, you don't. I don't see how PRO can conclude that the problem is there either way. 3. I'm not sure why he calls this a turn, because what he describes is a good thing. The teachers and schools that don't perform are let go. We only keep the ones that work. This not only solves the problem of students getting inadequate education at bad schools by shutting bad schools down, but creates competition that makes good schools do better. Schools need to improve their methods or face the consequences. If schools are systematically failing to adequately educate their kids, they deserve to be shut down. This isn't a problem, it's the solution. My opponent has been so kind as to articulate it for me. ======== Contention 2 ======== 1. He says "my opponent is stating that private schools are better" In my last speech I thought I made it clear: "I said nothing about government schools being bad." If that wasn't clear enough, I'll say it again. I have not, and will not, state that private schools are better. 2. A. Treating someone inferior because they are poor as private schools do (he doesn't actually argue this!) denies that they are just as human and deserving of education as anyone else. B. This is just his scapegoat to avoid the actual issue. This is the 2nd time he has failed to address that the poor are treated worse under his system. THIS IS A CLEAR VOTER FOR ME. ======= Summary ======= PRO says that he isn't advocating anything. BoP is on him. He's gotta end gov't monopoly somehow. He isn't saying how He ignores the fact that ending gov't monopoly will lead to the poor being harmed. These exams are a better way to assess school performance relative to other schools than anything PRO provides. PRO's only arguments center around the fact that some guy thinks that the government is inherently bad and incapable of changing, even though it is run by the people.