students of public high-schools ought not be required to pass standardized exit exams

Neg then Aff Value: First of all my opponent does not defend his own value so either we have no Value, in which the Affirmative cannot win the round or we accept the negative value. The Value is the end goal of the road and so it has intrinsic worth. Justice obviously has such intrinsic worth while, my opponent's value does not. On the Standard: My opponent's only attack on my standard is restating his case. This is completely circular reasoning as his attacks rely on his case being true. Also these attacks don't even relate to why my standard should not be preferred but merely why I cant meet it. Also in defense of his own standard he actually endorses the Negative Criterion structure. He argues that there is a brightline because we know we have achieved fairness when everyone has equal opportunity. The role of a criterion is to tell us when we have achieved the Value, not visa-versa. Thus we must accept my structure, which we both seemingly endorse. C1. Sub A. My opponent talks about still needing to prove competency when applying for a job. This is true but this is what the test help to achieve. I already gave the numbers on average income and so it is plainly seen that these tests WILL help. Also he talks about finding an alternative. First of all there are no net benefits of the affirmative solution and so we ought to prefer it. Second the argument is in violation of debate theory. For those of you reading this who are not familiar with theory, theory is an argument made in debate rounds as to the fairness of an argument or strategy. A. Interpretation: The Resolution must be the ending point of the affirmative Advocacy B. Violation: The Affirmative offers an alternative to the resolution thus becoming extra topical. C. Standards: Ground: The affirmative steals all the negative ground if he is allowed to find another method that is extra-topical to steal all of the negative advantages. This means that the negative is bound to defending one point while the affirmative has all the other possible ground. Ground links to fairness because a debate is not fair if one side has all of the ground making it hard for the other to argue. D. Voter Fairness: Fairness is a voter because if a debate is not fair than it is not equally enjoyable and education. Also, both debaters have already agreed in this round that fairness is the most important value. Thus reject either the argument or the debater on the basis of Fairness violation. Sub B: My opponents other attack besides the alternative method argument, which I have already defeated, is that there are no impacts. But there doesn't need to be. This Subpoint establishes the second link in my 3 subpoint logical progression. The impacts are given in sub C. Sub C. Again this is the same "alternative method" argument. There are no net benefits to my opponents plan and it is also extra-topical and thus unfair as I addressed in the theory shell. The net benefits of testing are that it is standardized across the board. For example there are advanced programs such as IB, AP etc. That it is much harder to earn an A than in a standard level school curriculum. Also every teacher has their own way of assigning grades. Having the test takes out the guessing game and gives us concrete proof of proficiency. AFF Case. Value: extend my non-intrinsic argument. This was cold dropped by my opponent and proves that his value is actually not a value. Criterion: Extend No brightline: He establishes that Fairness is found via his value. This switches their roles meaning his standard devolves into mine. C1. On the first argument: No, we cant see this happening in schools. That's why there is no warrant. If there is no warrant to an argument then we cannot assume it to be true. Also extend my second attack. This was cold dropped. I argued because of how he defined "standardized exit exam" that it was by definition effective. And an effective test will not have any of the harms he outlines in the affirmative case. This was dropped and thus is established as fact in the round. Meaning that the affirmative has no disadvantages to testing. On the second argument: This argument is non-unique. This happens in the status quo if you buy his argument. Secondly this is illogical and there is no way to fudge a test, any better than someone can fudge their SATs. On the Third Argument: My opponent makes the mistake of assuming that this would be the ONLY high stakes test. ACT, SAT, IB Exams, Finals etc. All high stakes tests and ALL essential in order for schools, teacher and colleges to evaluate a student. Also test anxiety is not crippling and can be overcome. Everyone takes high stakes tests and people will overcome their anxiety. Thus this argument Is still non-unique. On the fourth argument: I didn't say this had no link to fairness but to link to testing. I have already established that because of how the Affirmative defined Standardized exit exams, that they cannot be discriminatory. Also my opponent cold dropped my argument about accommodations so extend this. The Last argument I made was how, with the exception of the bias argument no argument my opponent made has anything to do with fairness OR equal opportunity. Unless he can prove this link none of those arguments matter. Thank you. Good look to my opponent and I look forward to your response.