students of public high-schools ought not be required to pass standardized exit exams

I offer the Value of Justice, Defined as Fairness. Justice as fairness is the only method of justice we can look as any other system requires impossible goals that are often not even defined. However Justice as fairness gives a clear definition. The Standard is Ensuring Equal Opportunity. This is the most important standard because a society cannot conceptualize justice if it is only obtainable by a few in the society. In order to conceptualize justice, according to rawlsian theory, we need to ensure that everyone has an equal voice and position when determining justice via the original position. While I use a very similar Value/Standard structure I will show, when I refute my opponents case why you should prefer mine. The Sole Contention of the Negative Case is that Standardized tests promote equal opportunity. Sub point A. Tests ensure a proficient level of education As per the resolution, the tests are a graduation requirement for public schools. Therefore it is insured that students must be able to perform competently in order to graduate. Right now you can graduate Highschool with a D- Average and reading way below grade level. The problem is, is that not only does this discredit the High School diploma, but it means these students were allowed to graduate without the skills necessary to survive. Subpoint B. Minimum Proficiency means higher Wages. According to the U.S census Bureau high school graduates, but do not go to college make an average of $30,400 a year. These are people that graduated with the skills required in order to succeed in life and make a decent living. According to the same source, people who did not graduate, which are the same as people who do not have the skills needed, earn on average $23,400. The difference of $7000 dollars a year or $580 a month can be the difference is eating everyday, buying clothes or other goods and supporting a family. Sub point C The impacts of this are twofold. 1. The minimum proficiency requirement is essential to help break the cycle of poverty. The reason poverty is cyclical is oftentimes the means to break this cycle are unavailable. But with the higher average salary these means become more easily available. 2. Guarantying more people to have this level of proficiency will stimulate the economy. Keynesian economic theory argues that it is the demand curve that governs the economy and thus our fiscal policy should work to shift the demand curve. By allowing people to have more money in their pockets you decrease the percentage of income a product costs and therefore effectively changing its price in the eyes of the potential buyer. Price is a major factor in Demand Curve Shifts and thus the demand curve will shift outwards. This will in turn allow companies to sell more goods shifting the supply curve as well, because by allowing more products to be bought the effective price-per-unit for the company is decreased thus the law of supply would tell us that the supply curve shifts as well. Economically speaking this not only decreases unemployment but increase the GDP. Moving to the AFF On the Value: 1. No Intrinsic Worth: A value ought to have intrinsic worth. This is why we value it as essential in the round. My opponent says himself that his value is the "only way to promote full participation within schools." Not only is this unwarranted but also proves that this value isn't intrinsic. On the Criterion: 1. No Brightline: How do we know when we have achieved fairness? This is not specified and there is no way to determine it. 2. No Definition: My opponent doesn't define what he considers fairness to be. 3. No warrant: he never explains why this is the standard except for three points that were just his roadmap and not justifications for anything Contention 1. 1. No warrant to the first argument. He makes a bunch of claims but never explains why this is in the definitions of a standardized test. He defines a Standardized exit exam as "is any empirically developed examination with established reliability and validity as determined by repeated evaluation of the method and results." This means that the test must be effective meaning it must be ensure the link in my contention but also it disproves this contention because an "effective test" doesn't hurt students. 2. The second argument doesn't make sense. Schools cannot lie about these results any better than they could the SATS or ACTS. Also this is actually not a disadvantage of tests and actually presents a problem in the status quo meaning this argument is non-unique. 3. The third argument is also non-unique. It exists in the status quo. Unless my opponent wants to eliminate any form of testing whatsoever, standardized or otherwise, he bites into these impacts as well. So this is not a reason to affirm as it happens on both sides. 4. The fourth argument has no link to testing. He defines a test to be "valid" and if its discriminatory then its plainly not valid, and by his own definition non resolutional and will not affirm. Also going into specifics: As with EVERY OTHER STANDARDIZED TEST, people with disabilities will be exempted or accommodated. For example, extra time, or a test in a different language. 5. This contention has no link. He never anywhere in the contention mentions the word fairness. He needs to show how he achieves the value and he doesn't. So even if you don't buy into the other attacks you still cant vote here. My opponent provides NO reasons to affirm in the affirmative case. All of his arguments are either unwarranted or non-unique and none of them actually link back to his own standard. So its important to keep in mind that when evaluating this round you must look to who better impacts back to a standard as per the format of this type of debate.