Standardized Exit Exams: Lincoln-Douglas Format

Argumentation is a river, a river that begins atop a mountain and flows to and through every facet of our lives. Under normal conditions, just as water breeds life, argument breeds intelligence. However, it's not a guarantee. When the mountain from which our river emerges leeches pollutants into the water, what happens? Perhaps life still breeds, but if so, it's mutated. .. Such is the case with my opponent's conclusion. Let us untangle our friend's mistakes. In this round, she says,"a standards debate still hasn't been made. .. " By what rule is she playing? Is asserting the falsity of her definition of justice not a standards debate? That's silly. One round she's claiming that I'm not refuting, though I'm not supposed to be refuting. Now, when I'm refuting, she claims I'm not! Oh! If only my mother hadn't raised such a foolish boy, I could set our friend a'right. Alas, my mother did raise a foolish boy and that boy became a foolish man and today, as I type for your approval, I ponder in confusion over our friend's misguided argument. Could she have overlooked the syllogisms? Are they not a form of argument? Wherefrom then can the claim that I presented no values debate come? Tragically, friends, from that same place which that absurd inference that we should eliminate schools emanates. .. in an irrational thought process. To this point, shortly we'll return. Our friend says,"If I can prove that my opponent cannot access a legitimate system of justice per my standards, please affirm. " Why, friends, is the burden of proof not incumbent upon Pro? I did cite such with a respectable source. Yet, now we see our good friend seeking to lay the burden of proof on Con! Alas, I must again admit, I am a fool unpracticed in the skills of debate. Yet, in my heart, I know her demand lacks merit. For, if faced with the choice between left and right, do we not follow the direction that's marked with a signpost? That signpost, my esteemed reader, is my previous source. Our friend is refusing to see it because she walks in a direction sensible only to herself. Next, our friend takes an unusual turn by stating that I shall further my argument in RD3. This leaves me further confused. There is no more argument. We have witnessed the dismantling of her position and what was left was an absurdity proved by syllogism. My friends, there is no argument to advance. The syllogism proves the error. There is no more. In response to my friend's rebuttal, I respond in like: 1. My friend is concerned with my use of "intended". However, her concern is the result of confusing where I used the term. In my first syllogism above, I stated what she intended in syllogistic format. Now, she accurately reiterates the long hand version. No disagreement here. Where the problem lies is in her negligence to recognize my use of "however" in relation to the second syllogism, which lays the foundation to expose the absurdity. I used "however" because I know she didn't "intend" to make that mistake. 2. Our friend asserts,"It is ridiculous to assume that because I criticize a system as biased that I want to eliminate it entirely. " I must agree. I believe that our friend has the best intentions. Because of that, I don't think she wants to eliminate education. This is why, on the logic, I have won the debate: Her argument causes conclusions that are absurd. Does our friend's logic force her to affirm the end of education while also promoting it? Yes. That's the absurdity. That's why her current argument against exit exams has not been supported: It relies on an absurdity. In the same section, she says,"Maximizing justice is simply minimizing bias, not eliminating any system. .. " If that were factual, why wouldn't she argue for improving the tests instead of eliminating them? Because her argument is exactly what she rejects! Test not perfect? Kill it. Schools not perfect? Fill in the blank. 3. Our friend says,"reductio ad absurdum is. .. " Where is her source? Above, I spell out my argument through syllogism to reveal a priori knowledge. A is B. B is C. Therefore, A is C. What, exactly, is confusing? In regard to the remainder of our friend's argument, there is still nothing there but perhaps a desparate reach for you to cling to formalities though she began by saying we weren't going to stick to them. Our friend claims that I didn't challenge some of her positions. Let me ask you this, dear reader: Should you have the misfortune of living downstream from a mountain that leeches pollutants into the water, would you sip from the stream? Such is my opponenets position. She asks you to take in the poison of irrationality. I thank alto2osu and you, good reader and you, thoughtful voter for sharing my first sojourn into debate. In closing, just because a good thing has some negatives doesn't mean we discard it. That would be. .. Throwing out the baby with the bath water! Vote logic.