Public high school students ought not be required to pass standardized exit exams to graduate

I negate: "Resolved: Public High School students in the United States ought not be required to pass standardized exams in order to graduate" I accept my opponent's definitions, but point out that if he addresses definition-based semantics in his next speech, he will not only be kicking his AC arguments, but bringing up a new constructive argument, which you would have to ignore. My opponent proposes a value of social welfare, then turns and says we ought to value justice. Since my opponent only explained and supported justice, I will address this. Do not let him get up and make a moving target argument in the next speech. I ask, why is justice relevant to the round? To "create a fundamentally sound Society"? This is the only link that my opponent makes in the round. You ignore this because he has no link, making it impossible to impact to. I, as the negative, would not be able to, whereas he could just provide a cop-out argument stating how his Value and Criterion are basically the same thing, thus linking them, which you must disregard. I propose the alternative criterion of Social Welfare, being relevant to the topic. This means that whatever is best for high schoolers, and in turn, society, ought to win the round. I don't think you can get any more fair and clear than that. Also, his criterion is as delinked and blippy as his value. In the first observation, he hints at my proposed criterion of social welfare through high schools: "which avenue of debate will better the students of our society in the United States?" in which I completely agree. But then he goes on to ramble about how we must acheive a just society, and how we must link to justice, but NEVER TELLS YOU WHY. To simplify the standards, here's what we should do: Use justice as the value, since we want what is most just and fair (aspects of Social Welfare) and everything for society. Use my criterion as such, since it links to justice, and is easily attainable by my opponent. I want the standards to be fair and non-semantic, so I propose the aforementioned. This is not difficult for my opponent to link to. Moving on to the argument. His solitary contention argues that SEE (Standardized exit exams) are unfair, because the tests only evaluate the left side of the brain. 1) He provides no link between the idea of "split brain" science and the left side being exceptional at tests. 2) Even if he did, it doesn't matter. He would be cold conceeding to the concept that tests accurately measure the left side of the brain correctly, which (TURN) means that this is a reason to Negate. Since the left side of the brain is correctly measured, SEE's accurately measure student's activity. 3) The negative impact he provides is irrelevant even to his standards. Instead of showing an inequality on a societal level, the worst he proves is that one side of your brain is tested more than the other in school. 4) His claim and his warrant have nothing to do with each other, disregard his tagline. Now, I present a TURN that impacts to his repeated Rawl-based standards. "Exit Exams ARE egalitarian" Brookings 2001: "A change in standards thus leads to gains for two of the three groups--those at the top, who graduate, and those at the bottom, who would not have graduated anyway. The losers are those in the middle, who would have graduated under a less stringent standard, but who now fail. Those individuals suffer from being pooled with a group that includes those less skilled than themselves (those without the diploma) instead of with those more skilled than themselves. No efficiency loss has occurred in this pure sorting model, only a distributional effect stemming from the individuals' relabeling. Do these losses constitute a compelling case against higher standards? The answer is no, for two reasons. First, in terms of the narrow choice between high and low cutoffs, a high cutoff does not necessarily lead to less egalitarian outcomes. The redistribution is from the losers in the middle to the winners at both the top and the bottom. Those with the most egalitarian preferences (so-called Rawlsians, after the philosopher John Rawls) place the highest priority on raising incomes at the bottom, so they should favor a rise in standards. The equity implications of higher standards are not limited to those who are at increased risk of failing but include those who would fail in any case, and whose stigma stands to be reduced." [1] What this card explains is that removing a SEE hurts the majority of students, since the only winners in a low-value diploma are the utter failures who couldn't pass the exam, and the ones who would never have had an issue passing it. Furthermore, he explains how it is a contradiction to the Rawl theory of equity that my opponent endorces. This alone is reason to Negate. As for case safety, I can imagine that smart LD debaters will be reading my every word. This is why I won't present an NC, and won't perform with the entirety of my skill. I promise this to all plagerizers: If you want to steal my words, my cards, my case, you will never survive, and I will destroy you in-round. Good luck and thanks to my opponent. [1] Incentives and Equity under Standards-Based Reform. Julian R. Betts and Robert M. Costrell. Brookings Papers on Education Policy 2001 (2001) 9-74