Resolved: Public high school students in the United States ought be required to pass standardize

1. What is debate? One side poses an argument and the other provides refutation. My opponent saying that LD is pointless is by all means extending my own argument. His logic does not affirm, it does exactly the opposite. "Then we would conclude that LD is a pointless waste of time. Now let's look at the alternative. We can't change argument I; my opponent clearly laid out why morality is too subjective. It makes sense, then, not to accept argument II, since that is the only way to lead to an educational, entertaining, and competitive debate."- LD is a morals debate. I am trying to prove that this debate is pointless. IN ORIGIN LD WAS A DEBATE OVER SLAVERY. Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglass were debating slavery... if that is not a moral topic, then by all means tell me what is. (Slavery is partially political, but they were debating the moral aspect of having humans as indentured, lesser servants where they are not) 2. WOW...Though I understand where this argument is coming from it is simply misplaced. Going on the assumption that LD is a morals debate, then the topics would have to have moral aspects as well. b. Again, in context the word ought has moral implications. (same argument as above) I do have to concede my opponent's argument "He has no specific case refuting the use of test scores. You thus extend all of my arguments, since they are the only ones in the round, and vote PRO." The one objection is that I don't have to prove test scores are bad... I must prove that test scores aren't not good. In other words I have to prove my opponent wrong. As I will do... V.Education- VC. Minimum competency Yes, these are completely valid arguments, we do have to certify minimum competency... but, "There is nothing in my case relating to justice or morality" if neither of these are moral or immoral then what are they. Morality to some extent governs peoples lives. If my opponent is not doing something that is moral, then he is doing some thing immoral. But if he is then he has some relationship with morality, so that is not true. The claim is that everything has to do with morality. He cannot escape it's reach. The problem is that in morality there are no gray areas...it is black or white. And as my opponent has not contradicted and has stated many times is not willing to do so, morality does not exist in the real world. Case in point, since morality does not exist , and my opponent is trying to say that something is good (moral) or bad (immoral), to win his argument he has to remove all moral or immoral benefit from his case. Even assumptions of morality. For example: his value of education. As my opponent claims education has nothing to do with morality, it does not exist, since to some extent everything involves morality. NOTE: I am not saying that education is moral, it just affects morality... it is the gray in black or white. Now that it has been established that morality does not exist yet affects my opponent's case. I will move on to show how his arguments fall. 1. Morality (pure good) does not exist 2 Morality (right and wrong- terminology for moral and immoral) exists 3. The gray areas are real life because life is not total 4. My opponent's case is not moral (pure right) 5. Since his case provides no arguments on how my logic about morals are totalitarian his case is not moral or immoral 6. Since LD, from begging was a morals debate and my opponent has not proven his case moral he loses. 7. Since my opponent has just ignored my arguments- they extend 8. since I have refuted his arguments THROUGH EXISTING LOGIC IN THE DEBATE - they don't extend.