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. Now for my extensions (unargued/ agreed and not to be further argued points LD rules) My Value My Defintions My Observations My Second Contention ====== Refutation (attacks on my case) ====== VC He questioned how it improves individuality, however as I have and will continue to prove it is necceesary in order to achieve Individuality, also the inference that it is impossible to hold humans to standards is incorrect. 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, how both they feel they can do and how those around them feel that they, particularly, can do. And Standardized Exit Exams do not do this. 1) Furthermore the statements about how individualized grading would lead to anarchy are absurd as well as unwarranted, and i never mention punishment, except to say that those who are not ready to live a life in society, ought to go back and learn. Therefore we can drop this non-topical tangent. 2) Once, again my opponent never gives warrants besides a mere ficticious anecdote. Now my opponent talks about Fairness and Equality, these are relative terms. Fair can be achieved two ways, by ensuring that everybody is at the same state of mind, happy, sad, etc. Or materially, Socialism, Communism. The only feasible as well as correct means of Fairness is to seek the first. Therefor the story about the girls recieving differing amounts of Candy wouldn't matter as much as long as they were each content. " Also this irrational exploded view of individualism is preposterous, he fails to realize that possilby two indivduals could be happy with the same thing or if people were given what they both desiered that it would be violating the spirit of indivdualism, all in all please disregard this because it is blatantly untrue. 3) As i have begun to prove "Such a conclusion" is not al logical contradiction. My opponent mentions a method X and how we can allow individuals to test from everyway except this, but that is not so, if method X violates individualism they can't have it, but 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. Also in the conlusion of his attack he sums his argument up by talkign about grading, but we are nto talking about grades and benchmarks we are talking about graduation. C1) 1) He questions the validity of Louis Volante (Normally an attack of this nature would have been brought up duing C-X allowing me to share his credentials. ). He is an Associate Professor, Faculty of Education, Brock University. And is esteemed in his area of work. Thus making his ideas/work valid . http://www.foed.brocku.ca... . http://www.foed.brocku.ca... dismiss John Doe argument. A) First off he has taken Volante out of context, teachers don't teach everything they ought to they merely teach to the test. And studies have shown (I would have brought up in C-X) That my this is true. . http://www.eric.ed.gov... B) I will address his point when i discuss his introduction. C) This is where Volante sites his work. I agree class time shouldn't be devoted to rote drills, yet it is. ====== The introduction ====== My opponent has lost the round due to his introduction for three key reasons: A. It builds a policy case, therefore not LD and a rule violation. B. Portfolio's are not Exit Exams C. My case suggests the use of Portfolios. 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 B. A portfolio is not a SEE. While a portfolio does evaluate by comparing with comparing to a standard it is not an Exam. My opponent says that Portfolio's "are "the act and process of testing pupils" but they are far from it. Submitting past work is not a test, it is merely past work. Furthermore even if i were to assume it was the act or process of testing pupils, which their is not a shred of evidence to lead me to this conclusion, it does not due so by questions. I looked into the link and google and never were there questions to test a pupil. Therefore it is not an exam. C. Also I blatantly state how portfolios are a more specific means of determing whether or not a student ought to graduate RIGHT IN MY CASE. I say verbatim, ". .. And more specific means of determine whether or not a student ought to graduate, can constitute a wide variety of things be it individual assessments, project based grading, culmative reviews, or portfolios. " . Now this does two thigns, A. it means we can take every impact and benefit of portfolios because the Pro solves for them and B. we can techinically disregard every attack on the VC because they would be attacks against his own case. Therefore we ought to vote PRO. ====== His case ====== VC This value criterion is the polar opposite of Individuality, when we asses accoridng to society we are determing our own worth depending on others which is not what individualism means. And in so doing we make people robots by forcing them account to the same standard, thus dehumanizing them. Now my opponent says if he gets a B+ its worth ought to depend on the surroundings and that is not so. If my opponent is capable of getting an A+ and he didn't then why should we consider a B+ fine. It is less that that which he can do. The impact of which is if he learns that he doesn't have to try to live in society, he won't therefore he will become lazy and suffer. Through comparing to other students we don't learn our strengths and weakness. We learn whom we are stronger than and whom we are weaker than, not our overall strengths and weakness. And this relative strength, and relative weakness, is not good enough if we want to flourish.