Public HighSchool Students of the U.S. ought not be required to take a standardized exit exam to g

I'll use his order, but I'll clean it up a bit. --------------------------- Aff Value Debate 1) Justice and utilitarianism are clearly not synonymous. One does not protect every citizen, and one does. 2) The purpose of an education in the US, I agree, is to provide every citizen with access to the US meritocracy (essentially to economic and social prosperity, or happiness). Note that my opponent, as proved by his value, cannot provide access to this meritocracy using the principles of utilitarianism. Criterion Debate 1) Just saying it doesn't make it so. The negative has yet to explain how exit exams are actually achieving equal distribution, thereby legitimizing education. Intentions and outcomes are not the same. Case: First of all, I didn't have two contentions. I very clearly only had one, with two subpoints. Sub A: I believe that my opponent misunderstood this subpoint entirely. Sub A sets up the disparities in the system of education that actually cause exit exams to fail miserably. 1) Consistent funding to school districts is a *critical* issue in this debate (not funds "of this test". .. ?). If a school district is chronically underfunded or without qualified teaching staff, the students in that district will not have access to the materials or skilled professional assistance needed to master said content and skills. At that point, exit exams are worthless because they test some students on knowledge that they never had a chance to receive, and on skills that they never had a chance to master. According to my opponent's standards, this is an acceptable loss, because he only cares about the majority. That is patently unjust (and unconstitutional). 2) No warrants that confirm that the exit exam's intentions match its actual outcomes in US education. 3) No warrants that confirm that exit exams give us any sort of access to the job market or to academic achievement. Sub B: My opponent is claiming that the exit exam will actually serve to point out "poorer people's" weak points, and that exams give them an open door to "a brighter future. " 1) No warrants to back up his claim that exit exams open up a door to this brighter future he speaks of. 2) In fact, you can essentially extend both cards under this subpoint. The first states that failing an exit exam illegitimately damages one's chances of graduating if one already belongs to an underserved sector of the population (which is what my entire case is about). The second card then reinforces the first, and states that those same students will become marginalized, which further distances them from gaining social and economic prosperity. 3) Extend the impacts of the entire subpoint, as well. Specifically, the final impact is the hardest blow to my opponent's standards. If he is attempting to achieve utilitarianism (which is unjust, as I've explained previously), my last card clearly states that underserved, marginalized non-graduates will become a social liability, which will hurt the entire society, not just the non-graduate. ------------------------------------------------ Neg Case: Value Debate 1) Extend everything I've said about utilitarianism being entirely unjust. I have not a clue as to what banishment of tyranny my opponent is referring to with regards to NCLB, but if we are using that piece of legislation as the pinnacle of educational justice, you can affirm right now. NCLB is a heinous attempt at promoting the standards movement in schools, and its biproducts have been entrenched discrimination and standards tampering. 2) Justice is still clearly outweighing in this round. My opponent states "If there is a superior of people passing this test then ultalitarinism [sic] is a better value over Justice. " Lest we wish to throw away the concept of equal rights in the US, you should affirm. Criterion Debate Extend both attacks I made against my opponent's criterion in RD 1, as he has failed to address them entirely. Allow me to remind voters: 1) "His criterion isn't a criterion, and he assumes that the test has benefits, which is what we are debating. " This is abusive. 2) "If I can prove that the test doesn't achieve justice at this point, I defeat his criterion anyway. " Which I did. Case: In RD 1, I did a concise review of the negative case. I labeled it "a quick neg review. " Guess he missed it. Please extend these attacks, as they go unanswered in RD 3. 1) "Cross-apply the entire Aff case. Neg is actively marginalizing an entire segment of US citizens, which is patently unjust. Since not only 90% of the population is due a legitimate, equal education, you can vote Aff on that alone. " 2) "Neg has no warrant for his only offensive argument. In fact, 1/2 the states show 70-80% passing. " As this sentence represents my last 177 characters, I cannot expand upon my attacks, but I do believe I have sufficiently proven my point.