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

On the CP: 1) The resolution is "Public high school students in the United States ought not be required to pass SEE's to graduate." He does say that exams are a good thing, but that's not what his case and his framework are operating under; his case is about student vouchers, not exit exams. He can say that "exit exams are good," but all of the benefits he is purporting to claim come from vouchers, not an application of the tests. The job of the negative is to prove why students ought to be obligated to take these tests, which is the natural converse of this resolution. To negate is to, according to Princeton WordNet, "Prove the falsehood of." Saying "students deserve vouchers" does nothing to prove the fact that students should not be required to take exit exams.. At this point, you're definitely voting AFF because the neg isn't even topical. 2) Extend my turn on his CP where I tell you that his plan excacerbates the problem of rich and poor schools. He drops this; it's a clear reason to vote affirmative because now I'm impacting to my arguments and his. 3) He claims that his framework is by upholding government monopoly; while it isn't explicitly stated, I'll go ahead and attack it: extend Harrison where I say that all of the problems with the US school system are inherent within the government's running of it. Thus the idea that upholding government monopoly is good is absolutely irrelevant as I have already proven this false. Framework: 1) The idea that his plan will save the government money is absurd. The government will have to find a way to manage a vichyssoise of students who are choosing which school they want to go to and have to find a way to make that all organized and somehow manage fluctuating school populations.. I fail to see how this saves money. 2) Even if you grant that his plan does save money, vouchers still fail to prove how upholding a government monopoly solves, which all of my analytical and empirical cards throughout the AC disprove. Onto C1, SP1: 1) My point is not that we cannot use other countries; my point is that just because certain countries with government monopolies are performing better than the US does not mean that they have good systems; it just means they are comparatively doing better. Extend this argument as he's not actively attacking it. 2) I'm not advocating we privatize education. As I stated in my argument against his attack on my framework, this is a normative question of education, not a policy resolution. I don't have to advocate we privatize anything. All I have to prove is that students are not obligated to take a SEE, thus he can't make the claim that I have to offer an alternative. Onto C1, SP2: 1) Look to Warren and Grodsky again...they say that the patterns of exit exams play out the same way in the number of states they have been enacted in. Thus the idea that he can magically fiat into existence politicians who want to have high standards is not empirically based; it is theoretical. I am offering empirical evidence; he merely offers the proposition that "we elect new people and fix it!" However, there is no warrant as to how this is possible and Warren and Grodsky make it clear that politics always wins out over principle and the standards will always be set too low. This is the pattern, and it will happen again. 2) Standards that are too low are by definition unreliable measures of student performance. 3) Again, since the standards are too low, the idea that "well, at least there is SOME standard" holds no weight. As I stated in my last post, objective standards in of themselves are not inherently good. Onto C2: 1) Extend Warren and Grodsky again (as they make it clear that exit exam policy failure operates under a specific pattern) and Stossel 3 and 4 (which states that monopolies, especially the US's, never innovate). Those are clear warrants as to why standards will always be bad. 2)Look to my previous argument where "elect good politicians!" does not make sense. First, politics, according to my evidence, always wins out over principle and as such state exit exams will always suffer. Second, merely fiating good politicans into existence is infinitely regressive and offers no real negative offense. Onto His arguments: C1: A: It doesn't matter if it's bad; private schools have a right to choose whom they want. My opponent don't advocate an abolition of private schools thus he obviously don't have a problem with them retaining that right. B: It doesn't matter if we're talking about public or private schools; no matter which side you vote for, there will be rich schools and poor schools. No amount of vouchers can solve that. C: He doesn't attack the original turn I make, but on this argument, there has to be some limit as to how many students can attend a school; the idea that through vouchers we can allow all poor students to go to the best schools is nonsensical. Again, perceptions are important; while hundreds flood to the "rich" schools due to free choice, the "poor schools" will be left to suffer. Extend this turn as this turns his CP and contentions against each other. C2: 1. The fact that my opponent is stating that private schools are better a) upholds the Stossel cards in my AC, which you can extend, and b) shows that there is some problem with government schools. Thus this argument is still a self-contradiction. 2: This is a turn for a specific reason; saying that "because they are poor, they are treated as less than human" is simply not true and is in fact a dehumanizing view of poor people. Another self contradiction. Onto his summary: 1) Again, I'm not saying country comparisons are bad, although our primary focus here is the US. Even if he proves that government monopolies work elsewhere, that doesn't mean the US ought to adopt those policies...Harrison, which has been extended throughout the debate, shows that in the US, specifically, government monopoly causes inherent damage to schools. Second, my argument is not that we cannot use comparisons; I'm saying that just because Government Monopoly X is doing better than Monopoly Y does not mean X is a great system; it just means it is doing comparatively better than monopoly Y. 2) First, note I don't have to advocate an alternative standard. Second, there are clear standards: it's called passing for years of courses. Education is normatively true per each state; the Pythagorean theorem will always state that a squared plus b squared equals c squared, no matter where one goes. Third, part of high school is college preperation; in college, the idea that there is one standard for every student is absurd. Colleges have teachers who will flunk you for arbitrary reasons. 3) As I've proven that government monopolies are always bad, you're still looking to my C2. At this point, the AFF is winning the debate. 1) His CP still is not topical; he may say that "SEE's are good," but this is not what his plan is operating under; he doesn't show how a) vouchers prove that students should take SEE's (his inherent burden by negating the resolution) or b) how using vouchers shows some improvement in exit exams. Topicality comes before all else; since I'm the only one debating the resolution, you're affirming. 2) I've turned his CP against him; he actually exacerbates the rich/poor school dichotomy, thus you'll vote affirmative; there will always be rich schools and poor schools, but if you negate the problem becomes worse. 2) Government monopoly, throughout my case and my opponent's, has proven to be bad. Nowhere in his NC offense does he show how a government monopoly brings forth any benefits. Extend Harrison and Warren and Grodsky; both prove that in the US, government monopoly in education always causes SEE's to fail and thus requiring students to take them is antithetical to education. 3) I'm the only one impacting to both case structures; I solve better for education,