Standardized Exit Exams: Lincoln-Douglas Format

My final round will be in the order given by my opponent: On my overview: my assertion was that my case is essentially untouched because no effort was made by my opponent to actually refute my advocacy. At this point, since the attempt at a standards debate still hasn't been made, you will be weighing the round via mine. If I can prove that my opponent cannot access a legitimate system of justice per my standards, then please affirm. Setting aside the fact that my opponent is introducing what constitutes a whopper of a new argument, and can then further that argument in RD 3 without my ability to counter, there are several reasons why you won't prefer his analysis to mine: 1. My opponent has clearly misconstrued my argumentation in RDs 1 & 2 with regards to my "intended" arguments. My intended arguments are clear: I am stating that exit exams are invalid because they test an inherently biased system and because they don't actually indicate mastery of high school curriculum or skill goals. My opponent essentially puts words in my mouth when he states that I want to eliminate the entire education system. My purpose in pointing out the inherent bias in the system was not to scrap the entire system, but to state that exit exams don't improve its state. Hence, if we are trying to legitimize education by maximizing equal access and reducing discrimination, exit exams aren't the way there. 2. It is ridiculous to assume that because I criticize a system as biased that I want to eliminate it entirely. Basically, as the quotation my opponent uses from my case states, every human institution contains some element of discrimination. Maximizing justice is simply minimizing bias, not eliminating any system that doesn't contain bias. 3. The accusation my opponent makes regarding my use of justice in the round being reductio ad absurdum is warrantless. He doesn't actually tell you why my contention about exit exams entrenching bias into the school system is illogical or absurd, which is what "reductio ad absurdum" arguments are supposed to be. 4. I fail to see in what way I have violated the terms of Lincoln-Douglas Value Debate. Normally, I wouldn't even bother addressing this, but I have lots of characters left and a classroom full of kids taking state tests right now (I know, right? Irony!) Essentially, my opponent has misquoted this rule. Though I contend above that I have not made any illogical or unwarranted arguments, I would also contend that the NFA rules aren't suggesting that illogical arguments are actually against the rules of debate. The debater in question still needs to adequately refute all illogical arguments presented in a given round. That rule is referring to the burdens given to either side in a debate, and not the quality of arguments. Now, for a few voting issues: 1. Extend my entire affirmative case, as my opponent calls some of my arguments "reductio ad absurdum" in RD 2 but never actually tells you why. He attempts to warrant this by making a few arguments for me that were, by my RD 1 posting, clearly not intended. So, essentially, he's straw manning me. Specifically, note that, coming out of RD 2, my opponent has admitted to exit exams being invalid on all three levels I describe: they entrench discrimination, rather than allowing equal access to high school education, they are not an indicator of mastery of skills or curriculum, and they are not indicative of success in the workplace. 2. Extend all of the offensive arguments that I assigned to his advocacy in RD 2. Never does my opponent fulfill his burden of proving that exit exams are something that should be instituted in US public schools. He gave warrantless arguments in RD 1, which I addressed adequately. He then chose to abandon his entire advocacy in RD 2, which means that he has no offense coming into RD 3, no matter what new arguments he chooses to bring up after this is posted. Thank you for the debate. Vote affirmative.