Public high school students in the US ought not be required to pass standardized test exams to gradu

Ok, I don't have a ton of time, so I'm just going to crystallize voter issues. On the negative case. .. . The first voter is that the CP is not topical. At the beginning of the debate, when he outlined his plan, he merely stated: "The should government continue to maintain it's monopoly on public schools, and allow students to attend whichever public school they choose, provided their grades warrant it. " This has nothing to do with exit exams, nor is it proving why students are obligated to take these tests, which is the whole point of the resolution. He might try to make the argument that "grades warrant it" means "test exam scores," but I would consider that abusive; "grades" most commonly refers to grades in school courses, not test exam scores. Thus even if he shows that vouchers are good does not prove the converse of the resolution (the negative position) that students should be or ought to be required to take exit exams. His argument is that exit exams are good (even though his CP has nothing to do with it) but that says nothing about student obligations. At this point it's a clear affirmative vote. The second is that the negative CP causes the rich/poor dichotomy to be excacerbated. He states in his last argument that if all students flock to good schools, bad schools will be shut down. However, this response is problematic for two issues: a) this isn't responding to my argument that those who are left at the "bad" or "poor" schools (there will obviously have to be some left) are made worse off. B), look to my Stossel 1 analysis in my AC which tells you that under a government monopoly (the negative position) no school is ever shut down, regardless of whether it is good or bad. Thus his CP won't solve. Onto the affirmative case: The first voter issue here is that all of the problems in the government schools currently (which he doesn't negate; he states that a monopoly is good, but doesn't attack any of my examples showing how the current system is bad) are inherent within the system. In his last argument, he tries to attack my Harrison analysis in saying that Harrison isn't saying government is inherently bad. For clarification, here's Harrison's words, with emphasis added: "The U. S. public school monopoly is guilty of seven deadly sins: It wastes resources, discourages good teaching, inhibits parental involvement, suppresses information, stifles innovation, creates conflict and harms the poor. Just as the seven deadly sins correspond to weaknesses in human nature, THE SINS OF PUBLIC EDUCATION ARE INHERENT IN THE NATURE OF THE EXISTING SYSTEM -- THAT IT IS CONTROLLED, OPERATED AND FUNDED BY GOVERNMENT. The politicians and bureaucrats who control government-owned schools do not have the strong incentives or the information necessary to satisfy consumers, control costs, innovate or encourage good teaching. " Insofar as he fatally mishandles my Harrison analysis, this argument extends across, meaning that all of the problems with public schooling will only become worse if you negate. If you affirm, you reject the monopoly and thus there will be room for improvement. Another mishandled area of analysis is the Warren and Grodsky evidence. In his last argument, my opponent tries to make a syllogism by deconstructing "politics wins out over principle," but he's not looking to the context in which it is stated; he's defining the words out of context. Warren and Grodsky note a consistent pattern in exit exam policy that plays out the same way every time; standards are always set too low and thus cannot measure anything. This is because this is inherent of the monopoly. Because of these reasons, the affirmative is clearly winning here because upholding the monopoly at all causes more problems for schools. Insofar as I've proven all of the problems inherent within the monopoly, you can uphold the entire AC in this debate. The second voter is the issue of alternatives. I'm not saying that I don't have to offer an advocacy; I do: get rid of the government monopoly. I'm saying I don't have to advocate a PLAN, i. e. the government backs off and nonprofits take control, or something like that. My only burden is this debate is to affirm why students should not be obligated to take a test. I have proven this through the evils of the government monopoly. My opponent states that "PRO says that he isn't advocating anything. BoP is on him. He's gotta end gov't monopoly somehow. He isn't saying how. " Again, I don't have to prove this. He then says that it's more realistic that the government would raise standards than give up some of its power. This is problematic for two reasons: first, Warren and Grodsky disprove this, second, this is a direct contradiction and turns the NC against him; when his voucher plan (vouchers is allowing people which public school to go to, i. e. his CP) is enacted, the government LOSES control because now people have a say in their education and are not forced by the government to go to a certain school. If that is true, then you must reject his CP (if you aren't already for its lack of topicality) as he has directly contradicted himself. What the Con is doing, in this debate, however, is infinitely regressive. In his last argument, he states, in response to my argument, "he can't magically fiat into existence politicians who want to have high standards" = Elections A: He provides no clear evidence if there are politicians who want to do tho this, thus this can be ignored, B: He has not proved or shown at all that the public wants higher test standards, and C: Warren and Grodsky defeat this because they note that even though standards are set high initially, they will always decrease too low due to fear of high failure rates. Electing someone conclusively proves nothing about the policies they will enact. Overall impacts If you vote affirmative, you get a system where students are measured fairly by four years of coursework, not a single test. My opponent drops the argument I make in the last speech where I note that education is normative between the states; the pythagorean theorem always states a squared plus b squared equals c squared, no matter which state you are in. He tries to pigeonhole me into a system with no standards, but I offered a very specific one (even though, again, I don't have to offer an alternative); measure a student by their grades over four years of coursework. If you vote negative, you get a system where students aren't measured at all (extend Warren and Grodsky here again. .. ) because they are not getting "the basics;" they are getting BELOW the basics. If you vote affirmative, there will be rich and poor schools. Same thing if you vote negative. However, if you vote negative this becomes worse because students will flood to the "rich schools" and leave the poor schools in the dust. If you vote pro, you get a system that is not damaged by an intrusive, corrosive government monopoly. If you vote con, you get a system where ALL of the problems INHERENT within the monopoly remain. At this point, it's a pretty easy vote for the pro. I'm clearly winning all of the key arguments in this debate.