Resolved: Public high school students in the United States ought not be required to pass standardize

The order will be Theory (off), NC A) My opponent claims that I give no reason why he needs an alternative to testing. However, this is very false. I explain that he needs to specify an alternative to create clash, prevent him from being a moving target, and prevent him from skewing ground. My opponent then continues to provide an alternative, however he needed to do so in the AR, because the abuse had already happened. Had he specified an alternative in the AC, I wouldn't have had to invest so much time in theory. B) It is still true that my opponent provided no alternative in the AC. C)Standards 1) Clash: The main point of this argument is that my opponent must provide an alternative in order for there to be clash. "Without some specific advocacy, they cant prove what they are saying is comparatively better than the negative world so they are not meeting their textual burdens to affirm. This means the aff can't claim to be implicitly using the status quo minus tests because there is no distinct status quo to take tests from. The NC can't show tests provide MORE equal evaluation without an alternative to compare." This explains that in order for the Aff to win the Aff world must be comparatively better that the neg world. In the Neg world we have exit exams to measure student learning. However, in the Aff world we don't know how we are measuring students learning, thus we can't actually know if it is better than exit exams (Remember the alt specified in the 1AR doesn't count because it was not originally presented in the AC) 2) Moving Target: Here, my opponent claims that I am presenting a disadvantage of testing and am agreeing with the AFF. However, I present a disadvantage of a world WITHOUT testing. The problem is that without specifying in the AC, my opponent can claim (In the 1AR) that disadvantages won't occur because an alternative is in place that solves for them. This means that no matter what argument I make, my opponent would be able to make a response to my arguments by simply specifying an Alt. that I can't refute without making a new argument. As I said before, even if he never intended to do this, potential abuse is still a voter, because i have to run theory to prevent it from happening. 3) Ground: This part of my theory is not useless. First, for clarification, uniqueness is when an advantage or disadvantage only occurs on one side of the debate. If an argument is non-unique, then it occurs in both worlds. Without an alternative, I can't know whether or not the disadvantages my opponent claims of exit exams are unique to the negative world. Further, my opponent claims that I should state the requirements to graduate. What my opponent is saying is that it is the negative's job to come up with an alternative to replace exit exams in the aff world (In other words I have to do work for the aff). What my opponent fails to understand is that the requirement in the Neg world is Exit Exams and that as the AFF he must provide his own requirements in the AC so that we can see the unique advantages and disadvantages to each side of the debate and compare them. Thus, the debate is unfair because i cannot see the advantages and disadvantages of the aff world, but my opponent knows the advantages and disadvantages of the neg world. 4) Fairness: Fairness precedes substance because if the substantive debate is unfair it cant be evaluated as one side is advantaged. And is a voting issue because debate is a competitive activity premised on equal opportunity to win so rules ensuring that must be enforced. It is clear that my opponent is being unfair by not specifying an alt, thus you will negate. (Reminder in LD theory comes before all other args, thus if I win theory i win the debate regardless of who wins the substance debate.) NC) Standards- Extend my value and criterion, my opponent doesn't show why his value/criterion are better, nor does he prove why my value/criterion are flawed with respect to the resolution. Merely claiming that I don't meet my value/criterion doesn't prove that it is not the proper value/criterion for the round. Because my opponent doesn't link his contentions into my standards (the standards in this round) he can gain no offense from the AC; disregard all of my opponents contention level arguments. C1) My opponent completely misunderstands and mishandles my contention. The argument in the Betts card is that without a standardized exit exam, any each school will set its own standards for graduation. However, employers will only see students as graduates or non-graduates. If one school has a lower graduation rate than another, then that reflects poorly on the school. To raise the graduation rate the school will lower its standards. Thus creating a race to the bottom. With exit exams, all schools have the same standards to reach and thus have to raise there own standards in order to increase the graduation rate. The flaw in the Grubb card is that it only gives two options really high standards or really low standards for the exam. However, it is only logical that there is a point somewhere between where the standard is neither too high nor too low. So here are the voters: 1) Theory- my opponent is undermining the fairness of debate by preventing clash, being a moving target, and skewing ground. 2) Exit exams prevent a race to the bottom 3) Betts provides offense off the NC, while the AC has no offense because he concedes my standard and drops his own.