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

The speech order will be Theory, NC, AC, Voting Issues Theory: A. My opponent claims that I made a false accusation that he did not say why I needed to provide an alternative. I urge the voters to keep in mind throughout this speech that my objective is simply to affirm the resolution and say that students should not take exit exams for graduation. The resolution's analysis does not call for an alternative, only to prove that the exit exams are bad. He goes on to say that although, "My opponent then continues to provide an alternative, however he needed to do so in the AR. " Essentially, he concedes this point by saying that I had to provide an alternative in the 1AR which I did and agrees it is perfectly permissible. For reference, please look at the A point of the 2NR. (EXTEND) B. I did not provide an alternative argument in the 1AR but this is redundant as he already said it was okay to give an alternative in the 1AR. C. Standards 1. Clash: Here, my opponent once again makes the assumption that I need to provide an alternative for the purpose of having the ability to compare the Affirmative world to the Negative World. He now makes the claim that I could only provide an alternative in the AC. However, you can disregard this because he already said in Point A that I needed to specify in the 1AR and you can find this reference in the previous speech. Also, he said that I need to provide this alternative to be comparatively better. However, we can still look to other factors in the round as to which side is better, such as who better upholds their value and criterion or structure of argumentation (or any other categories of evaluation). 2. Moving Target: It is true that I provided an alternative, once again, in the 1AR. He already claimed in the beginning of his speech that this was permissible. He also addressed the issue that if he presented disadvantages, I could simply repudiate the disadvantages because I could provide an alternative. Once again, even if I did not provide an alternative to graduation, keep in mind that I would still be winning because I am still affirming what the resolution says, regardless of whether I provide an alternative to graduation. 3. Ground: What my opponent said in his 2NR speech is a complete misinterpretation. He believes that I am telling him to do my work for me by providing an alternative. However, that is not what I said at all. Refer back to the 1AR about Ground. I said that he should provide his own REQUIREMENTS, not alternatives, for the standardized exit exams. So you should completely disregard what he said in the 2NR. 4. Fairness: Fairness does not come into play anymore. The debate round was fair from the beginning because he could have just simply argued in favor of exit exams and why they are better than a world without exit exams. I did not need to provide an alternative so that he could accomplish that objective. In all, my opponent, I believe, has essentially argued throughout this debate round that we should entirely not debate this resolution. This is true because if another Affirmative speaker went against my current opponent in a different round and did not provide an alternative, then he would run theory again. But because I have once again proven why his theory arguments are not sufficient, I win on the theory part of this round. NC: A. Standards My opponent says that even though the criterion does not achieve the value, it is not good enough to say that the pair is not suitable for the round. Once more, my opponent corners himself in the round. If you cannot achieve you value using the criterion, it is most definitely not suitable for the round because there is no longer purpose to having the value if you cannot achieve it with the criterion. He goes on to say that I cannot link my contentions into his, so I cannot gain offense. However, this is a new argument in the second rebuttal. This is against LD rules so completely disregard this rebuttal and penalize him for it. He did not respond to my case in the first rebuttal and can therefore, not respond in the second. C1: My opponent clarifies the Betts card and then says that my newest card, by Grubbs, is flawed because it sets the standards either high or low. He then addresses that it is only logical that there is a place in the middle where the standard is not too high or too low. But I ask my opponent now as to how does he know this? When has there been an empirical example to justify this point there the standards are downright straight in the middle. Because he cannot justify this, disregard his first contention. AC: Once again, my opponent has dropped my whole case and has not made any rebuttals to it. Although he tried to argue against my contention arguments in the last speech, that was a new argument which was against LD Rules. Because I have shot down all of the theory arguments that he has made, he has no more offense to gain with his Theory or NC. In addition, he did not respond at all to my case and so it is clear who the winner of the round is. Voting Issues: 1. Theory: I have already proven why my opponent has lost in theory. If you need clarification for the theory debate, look at the top of the speech under theory and in any other of my speeches or his. 2. Preventing a race to the bottom: I have already responded to this as well. See under NC in this speech or any other ones that I made. 3. Betts: I have rebutted against this argument already in this speech and the 1AR and it still stands. He says I conceded his standard and I have dropped my own, however that is also a new argument so you can disregard that. Either way, I never dropped his standard if you look at the 1AR and there is no way I can drop my own standard in LD. Overall, because I have successfully justified my own positions and that my opponent has not provided enough argumentation to win this round, I see no other reason to not vote Affirmative. And for all these reasons, I strongly urge that you vote Affirmative. :-)