Resolved: Public high school students in the United States ought be required to pass standardize

Resolved: Public high school students in the United States ought to be required to pass standardized exit exams to graduate. I negate this resolution Justice: To give to each what is due Morality: A code, sublime and inconceivable, stating what is right and wrong. Negative Burden: The burden of clash, is basically the requirement of the Negative to prove the affirmative's logic flawed and incorrect. This can be done by pointing out the fallacies in this resolution. As such, I will not try to prove that the resolution is untrue, rather it is impossible. This type of argument is called a Kritik. Kritik: I think that my opponent and I will both agree that LD is a morals debate. What is morality? What is justice? It seems more and more that the beings that try to adhere to it often fail in their attempts. These men who try to follow moral codes often are disproven by further generations. Take for example; Hammurabi's code the earliest, best documented set of laws. A famous quote from this code states "An eye for an eye." This is an example of equivalent repercussion. However, centuries later, the thinker Mohandas Gandhi and advocate of peace stated "An eye for an eye and the world goes blind." Codes of morality have been scripted throughout all of man's existence, all have been defeated. It seems that moral ideals are unattainable. By definition morality is black or white, true or untrue, right and wrong. These are totalitarian opposites however, in the real world there are sufficient inconsistencies in totals. Take for example a case where 40 people are about to be killed by a bomb. This bomb, however is stoppable, the catch is that it kills 39 of those 40 people. Though the course of action may be the best one, can we truly name this morality or justice? Would we be happy with 39 deaths? Is it moral to kill 39 and save 1? This is often considered utilitarianism: or the greatest good for the greatest amount of people. And it is clear how morality is not the best outcome it is the fully correct outcome. This proves that morality is black or white, true or untrue. Justice is indefinable: Man has always tried to define justice. One of the most generally accepted definitions is the Platonic definition, of giving each his due. Though in this sense morality is definable the real question is "WHAT IS DUE?" How do we weigh whether an act is moral or not? For example, a man saves a person from dying of old age but this sends the victim's life spiraling downward. It eventually leads the person to live a miserable life all because of being saved on that fateful day. Health problem after health problem ensues and, though this was neither party's fault, the victim dies a worse death. Some may argue that the outcome defines the act. This is called consequentialist theory; simply put the ends validate the means. This however has many downsides; men throughout history have used this as an excuse for atrocious means, just to reach a better end. Take the example with the bomb and 39 people. The end is not just it is best. Another example would be Deontological theory. The means justify the ends. In this scenario, there are also downsides, for example: A killer walks up to you and tells you he's going to kill someone. He later explains that he's looking for his victim but can't find him. He asks you where the victim is. According to deontology the means has to be good, but the means is the question. If you tell the truth and don't follow deontology the person is safe but you are not "moral". In all truth both these arguments have downsides; you may be asking why I am giving both sides. It is to show that morality is relative. It varies from person to person, culture to culture. The last indication I will give is that of the Nazi philosophy. The Nazi's thought that the Jewish religion and community had led to the downfall of Germany in WWI. They though that justice was to punish the Jews for their injustices. However, in the rest of the world we recognized this as it truly is, atrocious. It is wrong fully and utterly. Case in point, since no person can define morality it is assumable that morality, as sublime and close as it may appear, is unreachable. Morality has no application to the real world Since I have proven that morality is a perfect concept it is now only reasonable that I pull my opponent out of any skeptical voids. This resolution is set in a real world. The US is real; by all means it is the reality we are living in. The affirmative burden of proof cannot be completed because the resolution is conflicting with itself. Since ought implies a moral standpoint and morality is impossible to achieve then the resolution is impossible.