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

Thanks, Con. I'd like to point out that I'm not debating this as an LD/value debate, so Con's criticisms about my lack thereof are irrelevant. Now, Con begins by claiming that I have offered no "alternative to education," and thus we "must look to it" even if I make arguments against it. I have no idea what Con is saying here. In my last round, I agreed that education should be of utmost importance value in our school system. As such, I made claims as to why mandating exit standardized tests actually discourages education; the students and faculty become too focused on passing the exam rather than actually learning all the material on the exam, or learning all the material in addition to other useful aspects of knowledge. My point is that you can pass the test without actually having a full grasp of the material. The teachers will then emphasize test taking strategy and other ways to ensure you earn as many points as possible with the goal of passing the test, instead of just learning the material. Con then continues to say that wanting to earn a diploma will provide extrinsic motivation for the students to learn. I've argued that it will provide extrinsic motivation to PASS THE TEST; not necessarily to learn. In that case, the reward of the diploma fails to meet Con's own noted value of education. It then becomes a piece of paper with little to no meaning behind it; at the very least, the diploma could have possibly been representative of more knowledge if students could have focused on learning instead of passing a test. Con then argues that there are benefits to the student in failing the exam. This is hardly a point worth any merit at all. That's like saying, "Well, if a killer gets caught and goes to jail, on the bright side the killer's off the streets." Okay, sure. But 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, let's be clear - I'm not comparing these exams to killers. However, my point here is that if someone fails the exam, it's ultimately to their detriment and is hardly beneficial. As such, Con then 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. Next Con begins dissecting my arguments by crafting straw mans on my points. He begins by asking how we know that students are demonstrating their abilities using SATs, because they're not exit exams. I fail to see my opponent's point in this regard. Regardless of whether or not the SATs are exit exams, it still measures one's knowledge (or rather test taking abilities) to some degree, i.e. in the fields of mathematics, comprehension, etc. Also, I'm very aware that SATs aren't exit exams. That was my entire point. I specifically noted that one thing colleges could do was require the passing or taking of several entrance exams or SAT-like exams in order to gain admission to their institution. 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. My argument therefore stands. In response to my noting of Con's appeal to tradition fallacy, Con writes, "These test what is needed for the real world. They test the basics needed to graduate." You'll note that Con has failed to explain how or why they're needed "in the real world" or what "the real world" even is, as this is obviously subjective to each individual. Additionally, Con has not explained how or why there should be a standardized formula of what should be necessary for graduation. He notes, "Without those basics a student will not be able to function in society." Oh? And what are those basics? Calculus? Shakespeare? My point is that I'm sure whatever "basic" things Con is referring to will have already been learned in grammar school (like literacy), and as such, this should not really be required upon HS graduation. I can say that I'm 22, got excellent grades in HS, and didn't really learn/remember a damn thing... which is my point exactly. Additionally, you'll note that nowhere did I advocate for a perfect system nor did I say we should expect one. However, just because not everything is perfect doesn't mean that we should not strive for it or at least opt for the most fair and successful option. As such, I maintain that my proposed methods would be more beneficial and effective at determining who should be eligible to graduate: Have the educators and administrators in individual districts come together to decide the most appropriate way to test the students individually, or through various means according to the student's needs and abilities. That may be written exams, oral exams, projects, tutoring, etc. Also, saying, "yet we use them all the time" is no reason in favor of using them all the time. It's just noting that you do, not that you should. Moving on, Con says that it is relevant whether or not someone gets a diploma because an employer may want to hire a HS graduate. This is exactly where my opponent's logic fails. Con, if an employer wants to hire a HS graduate, it's because he wants to ensure that this graduate knows certain things. However, someone could just as easily not have a diploma and know those things. Further, like I have been saying, there are alternative ways to test students and grant them diplomas without using standardized exams, such as the examples I listed in the previous paragraph. Thus this argument fails, because I've explained how an employer can still make sure their applicant has certain skills, regardless or whether or not they passed a standardized exam. Next, Con revisits the problems of colleges. As I already said, a college can issue individual entrance exams that students need to pass in order to gain admission to the college to ensure that they have the knowledge or amount of education that the university requires for admission. Furthermore, if a college requires an exit exam, it should be the student's decision/responsibility to take them. In other words, the standardized test would be useful and still used, except it wouldn't be mandatory - it would be the student's choice. Thus Con was blatantly lying in stating that I have not answered his problem. Con then tries to state that the stresses from these tests are irrelevant, as the "real world" is more stressful. This is a generalized statement with no factual basis. As I've said, the "real world" is different for everybody and there is no way to prove this to be the case, especially if the student has a legitimate learning disability or test taking disorder. Con also notes that those with learning disorders are given more time to pass the tests. However, is that necessarily fair to the kids who don't have a disorder, but simply need more time to process information? Either way, this is being unfair to somebody. Con adds, "Students need to learn in this one way because its what is needed for real life. an employer is not going to give an employee lenience because he or she learns a different way." No, but the employee would get fired if they couldn't perform up to par, so this is irrelevant. Also, Con claims that tests are more appropriate standards than grades because students can cheat for their grades. Well, students can cheat on exams as well, so again this is irrelevant. Moreover, he says that you can't gauge what a student actually knows from grades; similarly, you can't actually gauge what a student knows from one standardized test. Back to Con for his final rebuttal.