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

Con begins by asserting that you do indeed have to fully grasp the material on an exam in order to pass an exam. That is absolutely not true. There are other ways to pass an exam, such as (1) cheating, (2) lucky guessing (3) random guessing (4) process of elimination (5) strategic answering and unanswering, i.e. on certain tests you actually benefit from not answering a question, or answering only those questions that are worth more points, etc. Because you can pass exams without actually knowing the material, then my point about the tests not encouraging the students to learn but merely pass the test applies. Next Con brings up the point that there is a bright side to a student failing the exam. I already countered this by saying yes, there is usually a bright side to every situation; however, the reality is that a student failing one of these exams will ultimately do him or her far more harm than good. As such, Con's point that it's okay to fail these exams does not stand, as this debate seeks the more preferable and beneficial option for the students. Con then makes the points, "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." First of all, we can absolutely learn whether or not a student is learning without exit exams. I already listed various other methods of testing several times throughout this debate! Further, I said nothing about testing students along the way... this debate is about EXIT exams in particular. So, I am still pro-testing, and yes, Con has straw manned this point. Second, my point about the SATs absolutely applies. No, they aren't exit exams, but they can still be useful in determining knowledge whenever necessary (i.e. in applying to college). Con has completely misinterpreted my point and as such did not even come close to refuting it. Moving on, Con once again brings up the issue of a diploma's value. Frustratingly, I have refuted this point over and over again. To quote what I said in a previous round, this is exactly where my opponent's logic fails. If an employer wants to hire a HS graduate (i.e. the value of a diploma), it's because he wants to ensure that this graduate knows certain things. However, someone could just as easily not have a diploma and know those things. Further, like I have been saying, there are alternative ways to test students and grant them diplomas without using standardized exams, such as the examples I listed in the previous paragraph. Thus this argument fails, because I've explained how an employer can still make sure their applicant has certain skills, regardless or whether or not they passed a standardized exam. Con then continues to say that he's read my rounds over and over, and nowhere did he find any presentable alternatives to exit exams. This is getting annoying! Apparently Con is illiterate. I've stated several respectable and feasible alternatives, including: dissecting their grades and class performance, using SATs and similar exams as optional ENTRANCE exams (or even optional exit exams... the key word here being optional if the person wants to have a competitive edge in the job/college market), and/or various, specific alternatives discussed amongst administrators, school boards and teachers in each individual district and school, class or possibly even individual so long as they show sufficient skill in designated areas. These include things like giving various presentations, fulfilling the requirements of certain courses, etc. Note that Con did not counter any of these proposed alternatives. Now, my opponent states that my proposed solution of having SAT tests be optional is faulty. He says that "This is agreeing with the neg in that these tests test basic knowledge and colleges want to know this in order for admissions." I never said that these tests aren't useful - just that it is not necessary or beneficial for them to be mandatory. He continues, "If colleges wish to have a student take the HS exit exam then make it mandatory it will save time." He has not proven why this is a better option, and who's interests this would protect. The college? I was under the impression that the value here was education, meaning we should probably act in the student's interests regardless of the cost benefits. Further, I've already explained that since these tests have a lot of problems (which Con agrees with), that it's actually cost beneficial to not waste time implementing them as something mandatory. Perhaps if they were optional, then people as individuals could even pay a small fee for them. Next my opponent revisits the reality of the "real world." Instead of countering my argument, he makes an irrelevant point of his own in stating, "if the real world isnt stressful then your not living it." This statement contains no facts, nor any back up to the argument that the "real world" is always stressful. I'd argue that some people even have it easy. I could explain further, but since Con did not back up this point, there's no need for me to. For instance, his so-called proof about one having to have a job and taxes is irrelevant if one happens to be born into a super rich family as one of many alternatives. Anyway, Con then says that we should not just disregard tests simply because they're unfair. I'd tend to agree, if those unfair things were taken into consideration upon graduation. However, according to Con's own standard, these exit exams would be mandatory to pass in order to graduate. Not taking into consideration the discrepancies of the tests makes it unfair and immoral in my opinion. Further, Con says that these tests ARE fair to everyone. This is in contrast with his previous point, and even arguments in prior rounds about how the test does indeed have many problems. Con continues to present the same useless arguments over and over again. He writes, "i see that my opponent is agreeing with the fact that there has to be a bar knowledge which is what exit exams tests." No. What I said was that there is a certain knowledge that is required for certain professions, and employers should absolutely test to make sure that applicants have this knowledge. Period. This is irrelevant to the issue of exit exams. Also, Con adds, "Since these tests operate one way, these students will learn to cope with situations they arent entirely prepared for." To punish a student in this way by preventing them from graduating regardless of whether or not they know the material is unfair and often harmful, as I've explained repeatedly. Leave the "real world" lessons to the parents, and the EDUCATION to the schools. In his next defense, Con adds, "we dont know what a teacher is teaching in the class room so grades are often inaccurate." Well, we don't know what the teacher DOESN'T teach in the classroom either. My point was that these tests encourage the learning of only what's on the exam and how to pass the exam, and gives no incentive for veering off this path in pursuit of real knowledge. In conclusion, I've proven that exit exams are not the ONLY way to test proficiency. Moreover, you should only have to have taken these tests if you're applying for certain colleges or careers. And finally, these exams can be highly recommended (practically necessary for success), and yet not MANDATORY. That's incentive enough to promote these exams without necessarily mandating them, so that teachers don't spend time focusing on it. Con is wrong in asserting that he has won this debate. He says he won the value because I have presented no alternative. Actually, as I said, I did not argue this debate in LD terms nor was this expected or required. However, I did uphold the value of education. Further, all of my arguments have trumped Con's tired and repeated points. The resolution is affirmed.