student ought not be required to take standerdized exit exams to graduate

REBUTTAL: 1) In my first point, I presented 4 arguments against my opponent's supposition that students should have to prove what they learned throughout the year via passing standardized exit exams. These points included: a) Just because someone passes a test does not prove that they have learned anything. They could have cheated on the test; gotten lucky with multiple choice answers; guessed; or memorized the material but not have actually LEARNED the material. Con suggests that cheating is unlikely, and that learning how to pass standardized tests is actually a skill that one should have to learn. I fail to see the merit of these arguments. First, just because cheating may be unlikely does not mean that it does not occur, thus the real issue here is not being addressed - simply pushed to the side and dismissed. Second, if standardized tests to judge competence are eliminated in general, then this point is null and void considering that there would then be no need to acquire this skill. Moreover, claiming that it should be a skill does not argue on behalf of the concept of the test in and of itself. b) There are various forms of intelligence and methods of learning. Most standardized tests don't measure improvement, or the overall education one has received. Con responded, "As long as students learn the information and the material they need for the course, it doesn't matter in what way they learned it. .. There is no way for the teachers to know what is on the test, so all the information will be conveyed and a general idea of it will be put on the test. " I disagree. There are courses specifically designed to teach you how to pass a test using logical deduction of multiple choice answers. I believe that memorizing a way to BEAT the test instead of PASS the test using your own knowledge is a flawed system. Additionally, Con has ignored my argument that there are various forms of intelligence (which most standardized tests completely ignore) and learning or demonstrating that intelligence. c) Certain students perform better on standardized tests than others. Just because someone might not do well on a standardized test doesn't necessarily mean that they haven't learned the material. Con's response to this point was that it was an irrelevant one considering that you usually only have to pass the test with 70% correct answers. This is irrelevant. My point is that some people are bad test takers in general, meaning even if they know 90% of the answers on the test, they may always score significantly lower due to other factors. My point has been ignored. 2) While Con notes that people who pass standardized tests make 2x as much money as those who don't, you'll note that this is not a cited study nor is a source included to prove this point, thus suggesting that we should eliminate this factoid all together. Moreover, simply because one makes more money does not necessarily mean that they are happier or even smarter, so again, I fail to see how this is relevant. Then Con adds, "When I say that not all tests are written on paper and I believe that those are the hardest tests, I mean that they are the hardest - not the most important. My opponent has agreed that people are tested throughout their lives so this rebuttal is obsolete. " Actually, I fail to see how my rebuttal was obsolete. I merely pointed out that (a) People are not given standardized tests in the real world, and (b) Con didn't prove how people's lives were made better as a result of being forced to take standardized tests, so I don't see how these tests have a long-term effect in improving one's life or helping them in the future. These points stand. DEFENSE OF ARGUMENTS: 1) I challenged Con's values and criterion in this debate: a) What does forcing students into taking standardized tests have to do with universal rights? Con said, "By passing these tests, it proves that you are ready for society and ready to be given more opportunities and more rights. " This is a gross misrepresentation of what rights are. Rights are not something that you are earn or acquire. Rights are something that you are BORN with. Also, opportunities and rights are NOT the same thing. b) Why do people need to take these tests to be free? Con ignored this question. c) I don't see how "the ends justify the means" in Con's argument considering that Con hasn't shown how these tests actually benefit the student. Con's response was, "Teleology is the end effect determines the means. I am saying that no madder how you learn the knowledge, as long as you learn it you should be able to pass the test. " Lol. .. madder. Anyway, I have already argued against this point numerous times. Just because you pass the test does not mean that you have actually learned the material. Period. 2) Regarding test performance, I again reiterated that not everybody performs well on tests regardless of whether they know the material or not. I also pointed out that some people have learning disabilities or anxiety, both of which will affect a student's performance. I submitted that because there was no way to ensure that the test taking process would be fair for everyone, then it was not a good judge of who should be eligible to graduate and who shouldn't. Con responded simply by stating that these tests worked around those with disabilities. He said nothing about the anxiety problems, mind you, but consider that my point was actually that by giving some students a test extension, it actually might be giving an unfair ADVANTAGE to them over the other students despite their learning disability (because there is no feasible or accurate way to measure each and every disability against the test). Moreover, just because someone might have more time to complete a test doesn't necessarily mean that the test works around the student's disability. 3) I've noted that preparing for these exit exams usually discourages teachers and school boards from focusing on other aspects of education. Con has consistently responded by saying that this doesn't matter - that passing the test is the most important thing, and the best way to determine intelligence and capabilities. However, note that he failed to respond to my point that there are various types of intelligence. 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, and that these tests are often discriminatory against those who are intelligent in ways beyond the test and which the test does not take into consideration. 4) Regarding alternatives, I presented the idea that if one does not pass a standardized exam, but their grades and class performance show a considerable degree of knowledge in the expected fields, then a system ought to be set up where educators or administrators can offer or allow other ways for the student to demonstrate what they've learned. Con simply said that anyone who knows the material should be able to pass the test, and did not even take the option of alternatives into consideration! 5) I presented a CITED source that showed those who are required to pass these exit exams do no better in the workforce than those who aren't required to pass these tests. As such, they don't seem to add any relative value to one's life or production in society. 6) To respond to my argument that these tests are expensive and not worth it in terms of a cost benefit analysis, Con says that these tests only cost the STATE money and not the districts, so it's no big deal. Wrong. The people who live in districts pay taxes to the state! Additionally, even if a school does bad on a test, it doesn't mean that they will stop receiving funding. In fact, they might receive MORE funding because of it.