: Public high school students in the United States ought not to be required to pass standardized exi

So...we're having an actual mock LD. I just got the topic two days ago, so I didn't have a Neg case ready. So I'll run a critique on Pro's if he doesn't mind. V: -By saying "they will find any way to pass you", prove that removing the exam will be better. By removing the exam it shows that the government doesn't care about education, thus the world will see U.S as a collapsing country. -The public school system is linked to the government for resources without the government there is no "public" schools. What will the government get in return for protection? My opponent would like to raise anarchism by removing the government and raising future generations of lawless kids, that wouldn't secure democracy. The government isn't controlling their lives but encouraging students to reach their potential and lead them into the right direction. -How do we measure students? The standardized test allows them to see how far they must learn to pass, this promotes perseverance. -He has dropped my argument about school competing for ranks=more students. He cannot bring this back up. VC: Your V is quality of education, no specific level of quality. VC is Enacting Fairness. By enacting fairness every students get a poor-quality education (budget cuts...). Does it look like poor-quality education for smart and above average parents and students? Thus this contradicts if you say no, if yes I don't know how VC/V will stand. C1: Prove how it's biased, if it is the state is sued for offending someone. (dropped) Again I'm running a critique. Just a tip dan1: don't use the same V and VC as your opponent, if you do then try to advocate your position achieves it best. C2: Obviously my opponent is a soph-novice due to his usage of terms, you can only extend whole contentions, V, VC but not subpoints. I attacked both your tag line: Perverseness in Public Schools and impact: Tests limit schools. All you have left is reasoning that has no impact or topicality. I did not have to attack your quote because I leads to nothing. NYC is just one city out of millions across the U.S. The resolution is regarding the whole U.S. Picking one city isn't reliable enough. C3: This achieves his V but not describe achieving VC. Finland is different from the U.S. My opponent doesn't describe how Finland's education system functions but merely says getting rid of tests will raise student's score. There are more factors than just removing tests, yet he doesn't describe them. Oh and what's easier writing an illegible essay or bubbling circles that 25% chance is right? U.S students are frustrated with SAT essays because a certain SAT group is grades it (do essays after essays wouldn't they get tired?) yet you'll expect students and graders to like it more, multiple choices scantrons are easy, reliable, and efficient to grade? Again I stated by using Finland's method we are casting our morals, virtues, and ideals; he drops this and C3 is invalid. C4: Prove it. There is no link or explanation saying that taking out exit exams achieves V or VC. -Now your C4 contradicts VC: You say in NJ if a student has failed HSPA 3 times he is eligible for SRA, 20% graduates passed SRA (the test for the guys who didn't pass HSPA), ("almost every child that failed the graduation test three times was given the opportunity to take the SRA."). So thus by saying 20% graduates through SRA, we have a fair system because nearly everyone graduates, thus there is no need for the removal of tests because Con's position has achieved enacting fairness. -Pro's VC isn't achieved through C4, C4 achieves Con's position. He has contradicted himself. By the way as a tip when a mommy judge is present keep offensive arguments for 1AR not 1AC. Resolution remains negated. Thanks.