students of public high schools ought not be required to pass standardized exit exams to graduate

sry kinda long. good luck. and i respect your not debating LD but if you attack my value and standard id appreciate you offer an alternative. she is claiming that you do not need to fully grasp the material in order to pass the exam. this is not true. even if teachers teach test taking strategy, it doesnt help the kids in any way by just teaching them that strategy. the reason this argument falls is because teachers will be more likely to teach material that will be on the test in a way that the students will understand the material. granted test taking strategies do play some part in test taking, but if thats all you know then you will still fail the test because you dont know the material. my opponent argues that tests only create an extrinsic motivation to pass the test and not learn. this is not true. if a student wants to pass the test then he or she will need to learn the material. as explained above, you need to know this material in order to pass the tests. so this argument falls because this diploma is that external motivation that makes students learn. next my opponent is claiming that tests ultimately harm the students when failed. she also agrees that there is always a bright side and my card doesnt matter. is is in fact false. i have shown that through my card, students will actually be positively affected. if they are positively affected then that student will not have a lowered self esteem because they will try harder to get that diploma, will not negatively affect their future because they will be more prepared for it, and will not be damaging to that students interests because taking a test has nothing to do with them. my opponent is claiming that i create strawmen on her arguments by saying that we dont know that students are learning by taking SAT's because they arent exit exams. i never said that for one. for two i said without an exit exam we have no way of knowing that a student is learning. and that SAT's offer no offense in this round because they are irrelevant due to the fact they arent exit exams. my opponent then makes the assumption that exit exams arent necessary because colleges will just look at SAT or ACT results. so most if not all colleges will do that, my point was that if a student cant pass a basic skills test (like that of an exit exam) then that college will not look to that diploma with alot of value. also if a student doesnt pass the basic exit exam but scores ok on the SAT/ ACT then that college will have no incentive to accept that highschool graduate.next my opponent claims i give no reason on how or why these tests are needed for the real world. youll note in my last speech i gave the impact that ANY job requires one to all three of reading writing and math skill and seeing as how these tests determine your basic level of knowledge on those subjects they do test what is needed for the real world. I DONT CARE ABOUT YOUR AGE PLS LEAVE IT OUT OF THE DEBATE. I DONT CARE ABOUT YOUR SCHOOLING PLS LEAVE IT OUT OF THE DEBATE AS ITS PERSONAL INFO THAT DOESNT EVEN BELONG HERE. PLS DONT CUSS IM NOT A FAN OF IT. my oppenent then claims that she never advocated a perfect system. this is false. when she attacked the fact that these tests arent perfect by saying "why would we use them if they are imperfect" she is implying that we need a perfect system in order to test skills because she offered no alternative to testing. she then moves on to say that the administrators of schools need to come together and create a way to test each student individually according to needs and abilities. 1. this is a problem in that we are lacking school administrators and there is no way due to this imbalance of teachers and students that we can determine EVERY students needs and abilities 2. this has already been accomplished. its called the standardized exit exam. my opponent claims my logic fails when i say that employers who hire HS graduates look toward a diploma. this is untrue. an exit exam as explained before tests reading writing and math. i repeat ANY job requires one to all three of those basic skills. so yes my logic stands in that these tests give a diploma value and employers can look at it to determine what a student knows. also i have read re read and re read again her rebuttals and i find no alternative to standardized exit exams that would actually matter. it would save an employer enormous amounts of time if he or she did not have to test the basics of the employees when they are hired. so these exit exams preform that job and save employers time. my opponent claims that its the students duty/ responsibility to take a college entrance exam and a HS exit exam if the college wants. she claims that these tests would not be mandatory for graduation but students will still take them. this is agreeing with the neg in that these tests test basic knowledge and colleges want to know this in order for admissions. by saying students will still take the test we are saying "oh you dont have to pass this exam to graduate but you need it if you want to get into college" if colleges wish to have a student take the HS exit exam then make it mandatory it will save time.my opponent claims that my "real world is more stressful" argument is not factually based. this is untrue. if the real world isnt stressful then your not living it. you need a job to support yourself. you need an education to further your career. there are bills, there is the government taxes. all are stresses. so if my opponent is claiming that those arent factual bases for how the real world is more stressful than a test then her argument about students choking or not being able to preform on a test has no factual base either. also if the real world is different for everyone then so is a test. we shouldnt disregard an exam just because some students dont do well on them. tests are being fair to everyone. handicapped students are allowed more time by law, and non handicapped students are given the normal amount of time. blind students are even given a separate test written in braille. i do not see how this is being unfair to anyone. these next words are my opponents: "Con adds, "Students need to learn in this one way because its what is needed for real life. an employer is not going to give an employee lenience because he or she learns a different way." No, but the employee would get fired if they couldn't perform up to par, so this is irrelevant. " i see no argument here. i see that my opponent is agreeing with the fact that there has to be a bar knowledge which is what exit exams test and since these tests operate one way these students will learn to cope with situations they arent entirely prepared for. she also claims that students can cheat on exit exams. and my argument is irrelevant. UNTRUE due to the strict regulations of these exams (five feet from every other student in the room in any direction) (CCSD codes and statutes) they cant cheat. so yes my argument still stands. and lastly my opponent claims that we cant gauge what a student has learned from tests. YES we can. tests test the basics as explained before. while grades stand as just a way to measure student progress. we dont know what a teacher is teaching in the class room so grades are often inaccurate. tests are not. they are fair as explained before and gauge what a student has learned based on passing or failing the test. i win this debate 1. im winning the value and standards debate because my opponent offers no alternative 2. i have put down all my opponents arguments 3. i have upheld my case 4. since i put down the argument my opponent has made against my offense (the un attacked final contention about how failing a test has positive outcomes) we can extend it into this round and my opponent can not attack it because that is unfair due to the fact i dont have another speech. 5. my opponent has no offense in the round 6. i have shown how tests have positive outcomes.