Resolved: Public high school students in the United States ought not be required to pass standardize

Roadmap speech will be NC, Off Case/Theory, AC Before starting the 1AR, I will give a brief prelude. Firstly, when there is an EXTEND phrase at the end of certain segments of the speech, that means to basically give me a point for winning on that argument, or part of the round. NC: A. Framework/Standards My opponent values education and presents a criterion of establishing effective standards. While I respect my opponent's pair of value/criterion, I will now prove why he cannot use effective standards to achieve this by refuting his first and only contention. C1) Tests create effective standards Firstly, he claims that national standards are essential to avoid a race to the bottom between the graduation rates of various districts. After that, he presents evidence by Betts to warrant his claim. The warrant is analytical in describing atrocities of not having exit exams. The warrant essentially says that through some odd circular system, 2 things will happen. 1. Districts would bring people into the workforce for monetary goals but non-educated workers would not prosper. 2. School funding can be based upon how qualitative graduation rates are. To rebut this entire argument, what he says in his first and only contention entirely helps me. His claim that exit exams set effective standards is not true by his criteria of creating the effective standards in the first place. Grubb writes: "Overall, states are caught in an inescapable dilemma. If they set exit exam standards high, incorporating 11th and 12th grade material, then pass rates will be low and states will have to confront the expensive and difficult challenge of helping all students meet high standards, throughout the middle and even elementary school years. If they set standards low, then most students will pass, and states can hope that short remedial programs at the last minute will pull most of the remaining students through. But this tactic defeats the purpose of exit exams, since it neither maintains high standards nor provides low-performing students with powerful educational experiences." In other words, his first contention is completely scratched out and irrelevant because although he tries to set effective, or high, standards, his plan fires back in reverse. If we try to set effective standards, the standards are always going to be either really high or really low. Therefore, he cannot use his criteria to achieve his value of education. (EXTEND Contention and Value/Criterion Rebuttal) Off Case: A) Aff needs alt. I do not understand why the Affirmative needs to provide an alt. requirement to graduation. My opponent has yet to prove why I need to do this. My job is simply to prove the resolution true and say why public high school students in the united states ought not be required to pass exit exams to graduate. If there was any reason I had to provide an alternative, then he should have said why. However, just for the sake of constructing rebuttals, I will provide an alternative. The alternative would be to judge graduation based on grades, rather than exams. All students simply need to do is pass all their classes and they will be able to graduate. However, this does not necessarily mean they are bound to attend college the next year. (EXTEND) B) Aff didn't give an alternative. Once again, the point is that I did not need an alternative because he has not basis to present such a claim. (EXTEND Alternative Rebuttal) C) Standards 1) Clash: My opponent now claims that I have to provide an alternative because my world is not stable. He claims that my world is unstable because I do not specify the type of standardized exit exam that I am arguing in favor of. However, I suggest to the voters and to my opponent to look at the resolution. It says that standardized exit exams should not be required for graduation. Because the resolution does not specify that a certain type of exit exams must be discussd, I do not have to give an example of an exit exam, but rather talk about exit exams in general. (EXTEND Clash Rebuttal) 2) Moving Target: Once again, my opponent criticizes that I do not have an alternative and therefore, it is unfair. However, the problem this time with not having an alternative is that I can claim that any of the disadvantages he presents of testing are actually nonexistent. However, since he believes that he is presenting disadvantages of testing, he is actually agreeing with my side of the round since I am arguing that testing via exit exams is bad. Since he agrees with my point, is therefore supporting my side of the resolution. (EXTEND Moving Target Rebuttal) 3) Ground: This part of his theory off case is absolutely useless. He says that he is unable to challenge the uniqueness of possible disadvantages that I present. He backs this up by saying that I have not clearly defined what the requirements of children are to graduate. However, this claim does not at all fully say why uniqueness cannot be challenged in Affirmative disadvantages. If he wants to challenge uniqueness, he should provide his own requirements and therefore, we can debate back and forth about those. Instead, my opponent is simply giving up on trying to rebuttal. (EXTEND Ground Rebuttal) 4) Fairness: This is fully redundant as I have already proven why I am not advantaged. (EXTEND Fairness Rebuttal/Entire OFF Case) AC: My opponent, in his NC/1NR did not at all say anything about my case. Instead, he decided to simply run theory arguments to say that I was being abusive. During his speech on theory, he did not exclusively bring up any of my arguments whether they be claims, warrants, or impacts. Since I have successfully rebutted his theory arguments, he has essentially dropped my whole AC which means he agrees with all my arguments. As we can see, this round is already over since I have scratched out all of his points. And if he tries to bring up new arguments in his next speech, the 2NR, those arguments do not count. He is merely allowed to defend his case. (EXTEND Aff Case) Thanks and I wish him good luck in his next round in trying to get voters.