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

This speech will be designed to crystallize the flow, and then highlight key voter issues. Please remember that we are debating in LD format, which means that you ignore any new argument or response he makes in his next speech. (The 2AR is for summarization, not argumentation! ) On the overview, he doesn't address anything. He twice takes my words out of context, and addresses them, rather than the points themselves. On Overview 1, he ignores the most crucial part of the argument: "if we as voters and judges are going to be intellectually honest about this debate, you negate" In his response to Overview 2, he makes a clear advocacy statement, which is sufficient for us to evaluate. As I continue, I will point out why this AFF Advocacy is bad, rather than arguing that he does not have one. (My direct argument against his Aff Advocacy was already stated in my last speech. Look at Arguments 1 & 2 against his C.1) He argues that I don't link Academic Achievement to the Pursuit of Happiness, but I showed that I did: ". .. because being a smarter human enables personal utility to be easier achieved on an individual and sociological level. .. " in my last speech. He continues and completely misconstrues my first argument (which is therefore extended) which simply said that the size or type of activity that certain people take pleasure in doing is not enough for us to weigh as a criterion. This is because we look at an extreme minority (as opposed to Academic Achievement, which measures ALL of society) and marginalize all people who are NOT in the group by valuing it as paramount. His response to my second argument is completely dependent upon the assumption that all people take the same pleasure, same ability, and therefore same skill to play golf. (i. e. an even playing field, like academic achievement) If this were true, then we could plausibly measure the impacts of the "ability to enjoy golf", but taken that this is far from true, we ignore his response. At the last Criterion argument, he responds by complaining about my word choice (the fact that I called the resolution a "question") which evades my actual argument. The actual argument is that my Criterion is the most relevant, and this goes extended. (And what I mean by the resolution "posing a question" is the fact that we, as debaters, are answering hidden questions about this topic. The very point of an argument is to answer a question, asked or unasked. This is an age-old NFL term, my apologies for the use of jargon I didn't clarify) On the NC ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- My opponent makes three obnoxious arguments against my negative contention, all of which are attempts to blur the truth and condemn statistics. Preface) "HIS ENTIRE CASE IS BASED ON ONE PIECE OF EVIDENCE" Yes. It is. It was a collection of data gathered by the NAEP, the US's most respected and unbiased educational research group. Please do not complain about data that you are not informed of. I assumed that using the most known/respected think tank would be common knowledge, and even if it is not, it does not destroy the ideology behind it. 1) It doesn't matter who Norman Fredericksen is, or what he has done. The important and relevant thing to know is that he collected data, in front of and with the permission of the NAEP, and marked it. The Brookings Papers on Education Policy posted the analysis. My opponent is assuming that all the actors in this study were corrupt or unqualified, wild claims that he does not warrant (because he cannot) in the least bit. 2) My opponent must have not seen the last five lines of text in my Contention 1. Let me reiterate: NAEP scores are collected and evaluated. The degree of risk associated in standardized tests matches that of the increase in scores (i. e. Academic Achievement) IDENTICALLY. My opponent's only answer to this is a paranoid chaos-theory, that "correlation does not equal causation" which, if we are being intellectually honest, is asinine. It is up to you now, judge, to decide if two graphs with identical points are related to each other in the lease bit, or complete b. s. 3) Now he provides an over dramatic spiel of evidence, assuming that quantity overvalues quality. There are multiple issues with his argument: a. I'm sorry that you are "low on characters", but so am I. The playing field is even in-round, and that means that our judges are going to ignore the hearsay you propose in all of your "cards". If you want to make an argument with evidence, you have to make the sacrifice I did (cut, post, analyse, impact) to make it valid. You did none of these, which makes the argument invalid. b. Because he makes nothing more than a grand series of un-warranted one-sentence claims, you ignore them on the grounds that they are without warrant and impact. c. Quantity does not measure quality. Since we haven't seen more than the titles of your cards, we have no way of deciding which study (studies) are better. That means we default to the Negative's evidence. On the AC-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I will briefly address each of his contention one responses: 1) You have never proven that SEE's require pencils. Many SEE's are computerized, pen-assessable, and otherwise. I have already addressed this. Reread my argument and extend it. 2) You still haven't proven that SEE's require pencils. I have now proven the contrary multiple times. Extend my argument(s) 3) You haven't proven that steel production somehow requires graphite (which doesn't make ANY sense) at any point. Extend my argument 4) Just because some use it does not mean it is the best. This response ignores my argument. Please reread and extend 5) I address and turn many of your sources, as well as labeling my own. This both defeats your argument here and supplies me with the "Sources" vote point. All in all, my arguments against his C.1 are either misinterpreted or attacked via the Strawman Fallacy (ask Kleptin) which makes you keep the turns I made before. Again, but with the C.2. (Sorry, but I AM running low on space. .. ) 1) This "turn" is false. If we are going to break my analogy down, thus making it less relevant, I can get up and say: "That's not School's fault, it is the DMV's. " Either way, the big stipulation in this argument is that my opponent assumes that the material on the test cannot be answered. This is completely false. SEE's test basic knowledge, NOT GENERAL, SOCIAL, OR LIBERAL ARTS KNOWLEDGE. This is what a test question looks like: 2+70=? (How many answers are there to this question? ) Open-ended questions are not testible in the means we have been discussing. NOTE that if he argues any negative impacts to this type of testing, it is against the rules. (See first statement) 2) This statement means and changes nothing. See previous argument and argument above. Extend. KVI's--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Your first, foremost, and most key voter issue is the Pencil vs. Pen stipulation. I addressed this multiple times, this speech, last speech, and all were still not addressed by my opponent. He defends all of his arguments (in the C.1) with the claim that golfers can use replacements to pencils, whereas SEE's REQUIRE pencils. HE HAS NOT PROVEN THIS. I have proven the opposite. Reread the speeches, and note this reason to NEGATE. Second is my NC. If you would kindly reread the flow about my contention, you will see how it still is standing, and how the hard facts outweigh my opponent's barely-relevant banter. Third is his AC. As you have been reading, I have directly addressed and defeated all of his arguments. --------------------- Thus, you negate.