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

from what i can see the pro has offered no alternative to education so therefore we still must look to it even if my opponent makes arguments against it. my opponent offers these attacks to my extrinsic motivation- students will have a hard time learning the material if they arent interested and some students may fail the exams. to that i offer the following. - the students will be interested in the material because they want that diploma. that is the beauty of extrinsic motivation. it makes a student interested because they want the reward. - even if students fail the exam, as i have shown in my final contention that can actually have good outcomes. so, students will try harder get help ect if they want that diploma. so cross apply my last contention here and we can show that even if students fail the exam they are still positively affected. my opponent then proceeds to say that employers should have tests to test the basic skill of their workers. and that there are other ways to test a students knowledge. 1. how do we know that students are demonstrating their abilities. the SAT ACT is not an exit exam so therefore any offense she gains by giving these examples doesnt matter. she offers no alternative way to gauge a students ability other than the exit exams so therefore this argument still stands. she then moves on to say why should we keep a test with multiple problems and that its an appeal to tradition fallacy. 1. as i explained these tests test what is needed for the real world. they test the basics needed to graduate. without those basics a student will not be able to function in society. 2. anything created by humans is imperfect. we cannot escape that fact. so it is unfair that my opponent argues for a perfect system when we cannot create one. 3. this is not an appeal to tradition. the card did not say "because we use them all the time" but rather "yet we use them all the time. " this is implying that though they are imperfect (as anything created by humans is) we still use them because they are the best way to test what a student has learned. she attacks my jobs argument by saying its irrelevant. it is relevant. if an employer wants to higher a highschool graduate then there has to be some way to gauge what that student has learned in order for that employer to higher that student. exit exams are this way. my opponent then moves on to attack my colleges argument. if there is no way to determine what a student has learned then colleges will not look to a diploma the same way as they would if there was an exit exam. that is the argument im trying to make and my opponent dances around it by talking about SAT's and ACT's. well as i have said before any offense she gains off this doesnt matter because they arent highschool exit exams. so the argument she is making is completely irrelevant. moving to her arguments she claims that students may choke during tests and that will prevent them from doing well and that tests are extremely stressful negatively affecting students. 1. the real world is more stressful. if students can not preform well under a test then they will not be able to preform well in the real world. so these tests are needed to prepare the students for the real world. without it we would see worse results than if a student were to take a test. 2. students are given more time to complete the test. if a student has a mental or physical handicap then the school is required by law to allow extra time for that student to take the test. (this is according to the Clark County School District Las Vegas Nevada policies and codes handbook) my opponent then claims that preparing for a test that only accommodates to one of the 7 intelligence's of learning is unfair. 1. students need to learn in this one way because its what is needed for real life. an employer is not going to give an employee lenience because he or she learns a different way. so these tests are fair in that they are forcing a student to learn a different way and this is also where extrinsic motivation can be cross applied. if a student has a harder time learning material then the diploma will drive them to learning it more or to the best of their ability. my opponent then claims that grades are a good indicator of what a student has learned. 1. this is untrue because we dont know what a teacher inside a class room is teaching. a teacher could just be giving lectures and grading on participation. this doesnt prove that a student has learned anything. 2. grades are a bad way to gauge what a student has learned because of cheating. students even if in just a small percent cheat and this is preventing even that small amount of students from learning. tests (due to strictly enforced regulations) help to one spot the cheaters and two point out the weakness in those students learning if the teacher has not "tought" in the class room. my opponent then claims that tests dont always test what will be needed in an occupants job. 1. untrue. an exit exams tests reading writing and math. ANY job you acquire will require one to all three of those subjects. so yes a test will be testing what will be needed in real life and gives that diploma value to any employer. 2. if a student knows the basics to be ready for life (which is what a highschool is supposed to do) then they are ready to graduate. my opponent then claims that costs are an unfair burden to the society. 1. tests are already implemented in all states. i dont know what they are called in every stated but in Nevada, they are called the proficency exams and in texas it is refered to as the TAAS. so this argument falls because states already implement such tests. i am winning this debate 1. my opponent offers no value in which to weigh the round and to counter mine so she concedes it and i am winning the value debate. 2. my opponent offers no standard in which to weigh the round and to counter mine so i am also winning the standards debate. 3. i have upheld my entire case and proven that tests are actually a good thing. 4. i have put down my opponents entire case and proven her arguments either fall or have no value in this debate. 5. my opponent failed to attack my final contention so we can extend that into the next round as offense. 6. my opponent has no offense in which to work with. so i urge the negative vote