Public high school students in u.s. ought not be rquired to pass standardized exit exam to graduate.

INTRODUCTION: 1) Con states that today's economy necessitates one to receive an education. He forgot to take into consideration athletes, musicians, actors, hair dressers, food workers, retail, designers, chefs, etc. whose typical grade school education has absolutely nothing to do with their careers. Further, we live in a capitalistic society meaning jobs and wages are determined by supply and demand - not grades. If an employer chooses to hire someone with the most education and best grades, then that is his right since he is after all the employer. However, technically the employer could just as easily hire someone with little to no education, or, that person could theoretically start a business of their own. My point is that while a formal education is beneficial, it's not necessary (except for the specific things mandated by law) - none of which include passing standardized tests in order to graduate HS. One can still receive amazing grades, graduate from Yale, and still succeed in the real world without ever having passed this standardized test. Con's argument that today's economy can afford non-education is therefore completely irrelevant to the resolution, as I haven't argued for no education, but rather not a mandated standardized test in order to graduate. 2) Con writes, "We must have a national or state standard of identifying failing schools..." I never said that I was opposed to standardized tests to ensure that every school was up to par. I said that passing these tests shouldn't be mandatory for graduation. So, Con has failed to make a substantial argument here. 3) Con writes that my argument relating private to public schools is invalid, because this resolution specifically discusses private schools My point was that Con wishes these standards to be applied only to public schools; however, that is to suggest that private and parochial schools are incompetent and/or irresponsible. How do THOSE students get by or THOSE students stay afloat? The reality is that they have found other ways to be successful and public schools can as well. In this example, I'm making a comparison and explaining how these standardized tests aren't necessary, and thus this is a perfectly legitimate and relevant argument on my behalf. 3A) "She never STATES A WARRANT in WHY DO THESE EXAMS discourage education." What I said in the last round was that if students aren't interested in the material, they will have a harder time of grasping or understanding the material than if they learned about it in a fun and yet educational way. If you don't spark student's interest, then they won't be encouraged to learn or develop a self-motivating passion for knowledge or natural inquisition usually necessary for success. Focusing strictly on passing tests instead of understanding the concepts behind the lessons discourages education, and instead promotes just learning how to get by via passing the exams. 3B) "The material required to pass the standardized exit exam is needed to real life." Please explain specifically what material on this test is necessary to know in "real life." Also, note that we haven't agreed on any specific type of exam, so this will be harder for the Con then it seems. In fact, in the last round, I provided a cited source detailing why the exams now don't seem to add any relative value to one's life or production in society. Con completely ignored this point. COUNTER-REBUTTAL: 1) Con says that if students choke/panic on the exam causing them to fail, it's a good thing because this happens to people in "real life." That's like saying, "Well, if a killer gets caught and goes to jail, on the bright side the killer's off the streets." Well, just because there's a 'bright side' (which there usually is in any situation) doesn't mean that it is the correct thing; it would still be bad for the killer to take someone's life in the first place. Now, I'm not comparing these exams to killers; however, my point is that if someone fails the exam, it's ultimately to their detriment and thus hardly beneficial. As such, Con has the burden of proving that these tests are still worth it, despite the damage they can do to one's future, interest or self-esteem. 2) Con next says that students have 8x to pass the exams. You'll note that there were never any specific tests cited in the opening of the debate, meaning for all I know, students might only have ONE chance to pass the exams on any particular test. 3) Just because one MIGHT have more than 1 chance to pass the test, my argument that the test is still unfair to certain people still stands. For instance, if the test was geared towards students who know mostly math, and I know mostly science, then the kid who knows mostly math has a better chance of passing. Meanwhile, I may take the test more than once (even 8 times) and still not be able to pass the test. Now apply various handicaps and learning disabilities in this regard; it strengthens my argument. 4) Next Con says, "In the AFF world, whether or not we have standardized exit exams, non-fairness will ALWAYS occur." Unless Con can prove that in the NEG world, fairness will always occur, then this is a moot point that fails to establish anything. All it says is that nothing will ever be fair, and in that case, then it doesn't matter whether or not we have exams at all. Our points cancel each other out on this one. 5) To continue about fairness, Con says that it doesn't matter whether or not the test is fair, because his value is education - not fairness. I've already explained how these exams discourage real education. Moreover, Con has the burden of proving that implementing an unfair test is the right thing to do. The reality is that failing these tests and not graduating would have negative impacts on one's life. As such, if a test is specifically designed that isn't fair to a certain group, then people will protest its legitimacy. 6) "Once again, she never states why those with "other intelligence" is important, and she fails to explain why that matters." There are various types of intelligence, including mathematical intelligence, logical intelligence, creative intelligence, etc. By demanding that these tests be passed in order to graduate, you're promoting only certain aspects of knowledge which is unfair to the students and society as a whole. All types of intelligence are useful and beneficial to society. Without artistic knowledge, there'd be no art. Without musicians, no music. Without mathematicians, no math, etc. 7) "If they do show a considerable knowledge, there's no reason to ASSUME that these students will fail the exam." I never assumed that they would. 8) "She states that college require passing or taking several entrance exams like SAT. She never explains WHY SAT should be valued over Standardized exam, nor does she actually state why material on SAT is more beneficial to overall society." SATs measure one's knowledge (or rather test taking abilities) to some degree, i.e. in the fields of mathematics, comprehension, etc. That would mean that passing these exams wasn't necessary, but that students should opt to pass these exams if they saw fit (if it was necessary for their future endeavors). Thus in this regard I have not only explained how you could measure a student's knowledge/ability (via these exams), but also provided reasoning as to why this would be an appropriate alternative and still effective. 9) Con says that the cost of these tests doesn't matter, because the government is responsible for providing an education. I'll have to disagree on this one. I believe that the individuals (parents and older kids) are responsible for ensuring that kids get a decent education - not the government. CONCLUSION: I'm out of characters for now; however, note that I never agreed to debate this LD style, meaning I don't need a value or criterion. Thank you.