Public High School Students ought not be Required to Pass Exit Exams to Graduate

This will all be warranted in my previous speeches. 1st I'll address each point, then impact calculus at the end overview 1: He still doesn't address why 'intellectual honesty' leads you to negate, just that it does. I believe I am intellectually honest and I still affirm. overview 2: It seems we agree that I do have an advocacy. I'm glad this has been resolved. Criterion Debate I think this will be the meat of the criterion debate and where I win this round: A major flaw in his argument is that he devalues 'ability' (I put it in all caps for a reason) on my side of the resolution and not his, totally unfair. He conceded in the 1NC that the ability to be happy (pursuit of happiness) is what is most important, rather than weighing overall happiness. Therefore, my argument stands that negating harms everyone because they lose the ABILITY to golf, and thus pursue happiness. This pretty much negates any argument he has made about 'not many people golf' because he is conceding that what is important is whether they can play, not whether they do, thus this is irrelevant. EVEN IF you buy his argument (no idea why, he agrees to the value of Pursuit of Happiness) that that's not what matters, he conveniently doesn't apply this restriction to himself. I ask you, how many people use: 1. Calculus/ Trigonometry 2. Their knowledge of Russian flora and fauna 3. Their ability to tell you all of the capital cities of sub-saharan Africa? He has no stats for these, and it's pretty safe to assume that the majority of Americans won't ever pursue happiness using their knowledge of the quadratic formula, therefore, if you apply this same argument that he made against my case, he has minimal impacts anyway because the vast majority of us aren't using (or even remembering) the higher level education that we learn in school. FINALLY, he completely drops the argument I've made twice that while, under his Criterion, we are only helping Americans, my Criterion has worldwide benefits. He ignores the millions of golf enthusiasts world wide who lose their love of PRO golf because the American golfers do poorly. He also ignores the millions of golfers internationally who can't golf because of the graphite shortage caused by America's extravagant graphite usage. I win the criterion debate on 3 levels. You only vote based on mine. ===- NC This boils down to whether we can accept his single citation as enough proof that these tests improve achievement. Let's go through his claims: 1. He doesn't address the fact that a study done by a single (fallible) person can easily have HUMAN error, just that this person is particularly qualified. As far as this as true (he doesn't dispute that Norman Fredericksen is capable of mistakes) it would be extremely foolish of us to base the entirety of this debate on this single person's study! 2. That's just more evidence. Reread any of his speeches, he definately doesn't give any reason WHY tests lead to achievement except that Mr. Norman's study says so. To rebut this he just gives more evidence saying that tests correlate to achievement. You can even look at the example he gives: "decide if two graphs with identical points are related to each other in the lease bit" Like I said in my original example, if you made a graph of ice cream sales vs. Car thefts it would be VERY strongly correlated. We can't just trust this correlation to mean causation and his case certainly never explains what that cause is. 3. My entire claim was that there is evidence on both sides (particularly mine as my examples showed) and that we shouldn't except 1 study by 1 person over all other. He addresses the 'quality' of my cards and really nothing more. He still concedes that there is evidence to support my side, too, so you can't vote for him based just on evidence any more than you can for me. ==== AC 1. This idea that we can have computerized, pen assessable exams is a. a new argument that he didn't address in his last speech b. unwarranted, no source that these are even possible c. computers are grossly expensive and prone to score manipulation via viruses/ hacks and pen assessable grading machines don't currently exist. 3. "I have proven the contrary multiple times" Read. Nowhere in his last 1NC why SEEs can be graded without pencils. He's just lying here. 4. Graphite is by far the best type of golf club. Read my sources, then read his (oh wait! ) and try to find an alternative that hasn't been mentioned. 5. I have multiple sources. He has 1 saying that clubs are part graphite, part steel. Apply the argument he dropped that steel production requires graphite (. http://en.wikipedia.org...) I win p5 and your vote on 'sources' C2 I'm not sure what he is trying to prove, but what he is proving in this rebuttal is that you should bote PRO. Go to the AC which says the PROBLEM with these tests is that they have a pretermined, closed-minded desired response and that this is not conducive to golf or true education. Now look at his rebuttal and see if this doesn't prove my point: 1. "This is what a test question looks like: 2+70=? (How many answers are there to this question? )" There is a single possible answer that isn't up for analysis or interpretation. "Open-ended questions are not testible in the means we have been discussing. " This is my point verbatim. .. Life is full of open ended questions which can't be tested on his flawed tests. 2. My statement was one of many open ended questions we stould be prepared for in life. He just decides that it should be deemed irrelevant and that it isn't worthy of a rebuttal. That certainly isn't true! He doesn't argue that the close-mindedness of these tests is a bad thing. He even goes so far as to reaffirm the close-minded single answer responses of these tests (read above quotes). He's arguing against himself, so my C2 stands and is cufficient reason to affirm. ==== His voting issues 1. He has no viable alternatives. Read the 1NC. He doesn't give an alternative. Read the 1NR he briefly mentions 2 (new) alternatives with no warrants. I easily showed why they aren't reliable. This is a voter for me, not him. 2. His 'NC' is just a single statistic. Hardly a voting issue. Read my numerous arguments about why this single, fallible statistic can never justify a win for him, expecially in LD debate. Without his 1 piece of evidence, he has no offense. 3. He has 'directly addressed all of my arguments' when pigs fly. Just look at what he has dropped: a. There are no alternative ways to administer these exams. b. There are no alternative golf club materials to graphite or steel (which requires graphite. ) c. Standardized Exams have close minded questions (he didn't drop this; he actually agreed with it! ) d. Close minded questions are bad, for golf and for education. ==== He doesn't even have a reason left to vote for him! There is no reason you'll ever give CON a win. Now look at all the REAL impacts. Academics CON: No logical reason it increases academics, just 1 study by 1 person PRO: CON concedes exams only have close ended questions (he even gives us an example )AND that this is a bad thing. My C2 proves affirming increases academics by stopping this abuse of critical thinking skill. I win by his standard (academics), but more importantly I win by mine: GOLF CON: Never remotely links exit exams to golf. Absolutely no reason to win. PRO: Extend the multiple arguments I've made that he has dropped: 1. No alternatives to pencils on these exams 2. No alternatives to graphite/steel clubs 3. Exams will have close minded questions 4. these 1 answer questions are bad for education and for golf. I have a clear-cut better criterion in multiple ways. His case doesn't even mention it. My case clearly supports it. I win by his criterion too, anyway.