Lincoln Douglas debate, topic will be standardized exit exams (September/October topic)

"First off i would like to remind my opponent that this is a Lincoln Douglas style round and as a result, and my opponents case resembles that of a policy one. He is giving a solution, that does not fit to the resolution. Therefore prima face we can drop my opponents entire case and go to mind." How is my case structured like a 'policy' case? I've never even seen a policy debate round before, let alone debated in one. Even if it's true, why is this a bad thing? If his issue is with me proposing a specific type of test, that's ludicrous! Here's a list of the cases of the top debaters in the country. Quite a few have 'counterplan' type cases: http://debatecoaches.org... --- "Now for my extensions (unargued/ agreed and not to be further argued points LD rules) My Value My Defintions My Observations My Second Contention" OK, what does this mean? You get to 'extend' your definitions, therefore I lose? I'm not sure why you saying 'extend X,Y, ans Z' matters at all in the context of this round. P.S. my argument on Contention 2 was that portfolios solve exactly that problem. ====== Rebuttal ====== His Criterion "I am pointing out ,and obviously you agree because you did not attack how I defined Individuality and explained it, that we the only correct standard to hold students to would be that of their own" So as long as a criminal hasn't broken a law by his standards then he shouldn't be arrested? The next time my teacher gives me a detention slip I should tell her that, according to my standards, I did nothing wrong? This is the problem with 'individual standards.' They don't make sense. 1) "i never mention punishment, therefore we can drop this non-topical tangent." Flunking high school isn't a punishment at all, I see. To any of those that still consider failing high school and being denied a diploma as a punishment, this argument still stands. 2) His rebuttal confuses me. I'm fine with dropping this point, anyway. IMPORTANT 3) "if people feel it is the most appropriate way, then they can have it, but that doesn't mean we need to force it for all." My opponent misconstrues the burdens of the affirmative and negative. His argument is not that exams are 'permissible', whereas I must defend that they must be obligatory. Rather, as I defined ought (and he didn't rebut) he must prove that high schoolers have a moral obligation not to take these tests. Him conceding that students can choose to be tested by a SEE (and thus be required to pass it to graduate) is a direct negation of the resolution. For those who don't know (as the resolution was never posted) it is: Public high school students in the US ought not be required to pass a standardized exit exam in order to graduate. --- His Contention A) "studies have shown (I would have brought up in C-X) That my this is true." i. Unfortunately, he didn't post any studies whatsoever in his original speech, so there is no reason to accept that his that is true. He seems to be a stickler for strict LD format, so he should know that new arguments in the rebuttal certainly aren't acceptable. ii. He posts a 110 page document. I don't feel like reading that, and I shouldn't be required to attack it. He hasn't posted any excerpt from it or any page number, so as it stands he still doesn't have any evidence to support him. iii. His study doesn't address portfolios at all. He says himself in the original speech that portfolios are effective. --- B) "I will address his point when i discuss his introduction." I made 2 attacks on his subpoint B. He only covers one in the introduction. "The entirety of PRO's argument is a quote from my neighbor, Louis Volante. It says nothing about individuality." His source from Volante just talked about how exams affected education. There was absolutely nothing in there to support individuality at all. He never addressed this, and since he seems to put an incredible amount of weight on 'dropped' arguments, this means his subpoint B is refuted. --- C) "class time shouldn't be devoted to rote drills, yet it is." Again, there is no reason to 'drill' kids with a portfolio system in place because it isn't a multiple choice test. Volante specifically analyzed the type of test that is currently most typical, which is multiple choice/ short answer. ======== Introduction ======== A) "My opponent offers the use of portfolio's to answer our troubles in school, thus presenting a solution. So we can't vote for him" Hopefully I'm not the only person who sees this as backwards. I presented a solution...so don't vote for me? --- B) "Submitting past work is not a test, it is merely past work." i. A test, when graded, is also past work. How far in the past is 'past?' ii. PRO's entire contention 2 explains why we should test from various points in time, not just one. His C2 works against him. iii. I met PRO's original definitions for a test. That it can't be 'past work' etc. is entirely unfounded. --- C) "I blatantly state how portfolios are a more specific means of determing whether or not a student ought to graduate RIGHT IN MY CASE." ...and I state that portfolios are standardized exit exams RIGHT IN MY CASE. The difference? I have evidence to back my claim up. --- ===== My Case ===== My Criterion His Claim: "when we asses accoridng to society we are determing our own worth depending on others which is not what individualism means." His definition of Individuality: "Individuality is defined as the particular character, or aggregate of qualities, that distinguishes one person or thing from others" We can't distinguish ourselves from others without a means by which we can compare ourselves to others. ==================== Order of Operations (in voting) ==================== First, By his own definition of 'individuality' we require a means of comparing ourselves to others. We need to determine what makes us unique, or individual. This means you choose my value criterion as it is the only way to promote individuality, by giving students a means to better comprehend their own individuality. I'm the only one who gives students a means to assess their abilities relative to society as a whole, so you can vote right here. Then, if you don't buy that, second, You can vote on the 2 turns to his own criterion, #1 & 3. First, assessing everyone individually is comparative to anarchy where everyone makes their own laws. Second, he can't justify suppressing our ability to take SEEs in the name of individuality, because it is logically contradictory. Finally, if you haven't voted for me yet (you should have), then third, He is instigator as well as PRO in this argument, and none of his arguments at all have anything to do with portfolios. Therefore he has in no way met his burden of proof in showing that we ought not have portfolio-based standardized exit exams.