Public high school students in the US ought not be required to pass standardized test exams to gradu

On to his CP text... 1) He's not topical. This is very obvious just by looking at his plan text. He is not proving how students ought to be required to take an exit exam; he's arguing in favor of school vouchers. He's not debating the resolution, nor is any of his NC offense about exit exams. Since he's not topical, it's a very clear affirmative ballot in this debate. He doesn't show how sending students to a school of their choice means they are obligated to take an exit exam. This is the primary reason why you'll vote aff. 2) My case is preventing government monopoly, thus his whole CP fails to achieve anything that my case is trying to solve. Allowing students to choose doesn't solve the problems of the government schools themselves. Extend my Harrison analysis which states that the problems with government schools are inherent to the fact they are run by the government. At this point, the entire negative counterplan fails to achieve any beneficiality. Moreover, you can also extend my Warren and Grodsky analysis, which states that any time in the US the government has mandated exit exams politics always wins out over education and as such it suffers. 3) He offers no framework by which to evaluate his CP. Even if he defaults to a post fiat util calc, he can't claim net benefits because his CP doesn't link to my case. 4) Turn his CP against him. If students are allowed to choose, then schools that are currently deemed as "richer" will be overflooded with students who want to move (seeing as they have the choice) and thus the problem of rich and poor schools, which he argues is important, will be exacerbated. Onto my framework.... 1) His CP and my AC are mutually exclusive. Thus he can't hijack my framework. 2) He fails to provide any statistics as to how this new plan will cost; given the current recession it is likely to leave a severe dent that is not good to be made. My opponent will probably try to opt out of this argument by saying I don't offer an alternative; however, that is not necessary for my burden in this debate. This resolution is a normative question of education, not a policy resolution. The resolution asks if students are obligated to take these tests. My case shows that since all students in the US could only be forced to take an exit exam is through government mandate, it is unjust because government control of schools is bad. On my C1: 1)Seeing as the government will still run the schools, the problem of monopoly isn't solved. His argument falls. On my SP1: 1) The examples of those countries was a comparative analysis. Even if Country A is doing better than B or C with a government monopoly, that doesn't mean the monopoly is good; all it means is that it is comparatively doing better than others. 2) The resolution is clear that we are debating in the United States. Not in other countries. I have proven through the AC that in the US a government monopoly is inherently and pragmatically bad, thus you're affirming. On my SP2: 1) You're not voting for the CP because it's not topical. Thus any benefits he tries to hijack from this argument are null and void. 2) He appeals to an objective standard; we need to "measure schools." However, what if that standard is bad? Standards in of themselves are not good. It is clear in the AC that government mandated standards are always bad because politics wins out over principle (extend Warren and Grodsky here again) and the standards are set too low to measure anything at all. Thus standards just can't be "magically raised" (as per his argument against my C2); this card clearly states that any time a government runs a test it will always lower the standards. On my C2: 1) Just because my C2 isn't an independent voter doesn't mean it can just be ignored. 2) He hasn't proved how a monopoly is good; he tries to hijack my framework, but this is impossible because his case and mine are mutually exclusive. 3) I sourced this evidence. If you want a hyperlink, I can post it, but I gave author's full names and the cite of the source for credibility. He doesn't use my lack of some sort of full citation as a reason to negate anyways, so that argument can be ignored. 4) Policymakers are the ones who set the standards, and thus they always set them at point too low. If you uphold a government monopoly in the US, the standards will always be bad. 5) He can't just magically "set the bar higher" for many reasons: a) He doesn't prove how high standards solve, b) This isn't part of his CP, c) This ignores the Warren and Grodsky analysis which says that politics will always win out over educational principle and even if the standards are set high initially, they will always be lowered due to high failure rates. Onto his case: On his first point: A: We live in a capitalist society. Schools have the right to do that. B: This argument is non-unique. There will be rich and poor schools regardless of which side you vote for. C: Look to the turn I make on his framework; if students get to choose, then schools percieved as "good" will become flooded with students, leaving poorer students in the "poor" schools to suffer. On his second point: A: This is a self-contradiction. He claims that students who don't go to private schools due to costs get a "2nd rate" education in the public system. He is admitting government schools are bad. This turns this argument against him. B: The fact that people are poor doesn't mean they are dehumanized. In fact, by saying that is so, my opponent is contradicting himself again. In conclusion, this is an obvious aff ballot because: A) My opponent is not topical B) He has no way to evaluate impacts; he can't hijack my case as my case and his are mutually exclusive C) I have proved that in the US (the limits set by the resolution) government monopoly of schools and exit exams are always bad.