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

I will use my opponent's structure from RD 4: -------------------- Aff Case: Value Debate 1. I'm not achieving equality. I'm achieving equal access to educational standards. The two are not the same. 2. Utilitarianism is unjust and discriminatory. My opponent has yet to address this. Extend it. 3. Extend my previous comments about NCLB and how much it fails as a legislative measure, especially if my opponent is linking NCLB with the discriminatory practice of utilitarianism. Criterion Debate 1. Extend all previous responses on the criterion debate. Space compels me not to repeat them a third time, but they go unaddressed, which means that my opponent has no criterion. Contention 1, Sub A Point 1 (I believe he is referring to my numbered responses in RD 3) -The unconstitutionality comes from denying large amounts of students equal access to education, as is proved in my entire case. -The funding of the test is not at issue. It never has been. The funding of individual districts in order to provide equal access to materials and quality staffing is. Extend my analysis on this point. Point 2 -Clarification: I stated that my opponent has no warrants to back up his claim that the intentions of exit exams match their actual outcomes. We can create something with the best intentions in mind, but its application could still lead to utter failure (as is the case with exit exams). -Of course exit exams match state standards (national standards don't exist as education is a state's right). That doesn't prove that the exit exam ensures equal access to education, though, as those state standards are currently not being taught equally. Hence, underserved students can't pass the exit exam due to systemic discrimination. Cross-apply those impacts I noted from RD 3. Point 3 -I never stated that exit exams don't prepare students for the workforce. Our evaluation of them can't even make it that far because of unequal access to education. What I stated was that my opponent didn't provide a warrant to prove that exit exams did all the good things that he said they did. One can't just assert something like that without a warrant. Contention 1, Sub B Tagline Response: At the point where I prove that exit exams are invalid due to inherent, systemic flaws, the "weaknesses" my opponent refers to cannot be trusted, anyway. Point 1 -This brighter world/better workforce is inaccessible by my opponent; I've warranted this claim multiple times. Point 2 -The warrant for non-graduates being individually unsuccessful as well as a social liability is, in fact, directly in my case. Look to my second and third cards. Evidence provided. Point 3 -Private scores & "teachers help" do not solve the impacts that I extend in RD 3. This is also another unwarranted assertion with no clear link to my response. -------------------- Neg Case Value Debate -Exit exam grading policy has absolutely nothing to do with anything I've argued in this debate. The system is biased (the distribution of education itself), which is why the test fails. Again, I never claim that exit exams themselves are biased in form or in grading. Blip on Equal Rights (between value debate and criterion debate) -My opponent has yet to link the exit exam to equal access to education in any way, warrant or not. I have. Criterion Debate -Extend the arguments made in the initial rounds. It is abusive to use exit exams as a criterion. Neg Contentions: One more time, I'll ask that you extend my responses to my opponent's case, which have been posted since RD 1. Silence only has the potential to be consent if one is actually silent. 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."- This is entirely dropped, which takes out his entire case. 2) "Neg has no warrant for his only offensive argument. In fact, 1/2 the states show 70-80% passing."- My opponent states that his 90% passing stat is true, but never says anything about the source that I provide in RD 1. Hence, you will prefer my stat. However, the first, dropped argument is your reason to vote Aff. I will only provide voting issues, and no new arguments, in my last round. I encourage my opponent to do the same.