: Public high school students in the United States ought not to be required to pass standardized exi

I negate the resolution... As Con, Pro has the burden of proof. He must prove the resolution's benefit outweighs the harms. I have no qualms with his definitions. Rebuttals: Observations: 1. Without the intervention of the government there will be no requirements and rewards for students and schools to achieve, thus schools have no desire to improve the quality of education. Schools wasting their money isn't the government's problem, the school has earned the money through educating students well. The government cannot be the source of the graduation problem because: 1.By eliminated standard exit exams governments cannot observe the flaws of their system 2. Schools have no requirements to meet thus they cannot be ranked and everyone, even the dimwitted ones, can graduate with a poor education by sleeping through class. 3. A majority of poor educated will extremely affect society over time, such as increasing poverty and destroying the middle class. V: Quality of Education. -Students, even in high school, have not fully developed judgement to make right choices. For example is doing drugs a right choice? No, it is not yet students still do it because they lack keen judgement. With the government interfering by making certain drugs illegal their "using" rates have gone down. With the school interfering by education students about the harms of drugs and enforcing drug consequences on campus are extreme, thus this dissuades students from doing drugs and harms. In this example I have proven that the government must intervene to secure justice. -Allowing students to make their own choices it is harmful for 2 reasons: 1. Reasoned above. 2. They do not know what choices are beneficial for the future. For example: We put the baby on the table mixed with sweet foods and other foods that's healthy. Would the baby naturally go for the healthy food or the sweet food? Study shows that babies are more prone to sweet foods. This is a metaphor, the baby=teen; sweet=harmful in disguise; healthy=bright future. If we take out government intervention then teenagers are at the stage of the baby, not knowing what's right and wrong, thus they take what they instantly favor, failure in disguise. So by taking the government out and allowing students to make choices we are destroying them. (Hobbes) 3. People in general are already evil, the government is there to encase this evil; so by removing government intervention we are allowing this "evil" to create chaos (Hobbes). -Standardized test to graduate actually increases the quality of education because schools are striving to be the top; standardized test allows schools to observe their ranks and form ways to compete and do better to gain more students and by having more students they school receives more and better resources from the government. Basically standardized tests increase the quality of education. -Refer to observation rebuttal. Thus with the government doing it's duty and requiring standardized test for graduation they are attempting to lead us into the right direction and this increases the quality of education. VC: Everyone is getting a quality education. Prove how it's unfair to tax payers. Fairness cannot be used as a VC because VC is an action to achieve V and fairness is a noun. Therefore your VC cannot achieve your V and your V contradicts your VC and position. Note-Sub-points are used if you have more than one point. Just a tip:) C1: -Standardized tests cannot be biased otherwise they'll be sued, states don't want that. Prove that state test requires outside knowledge. You don't need knowledge about "matching price" to pass a test. In CA we take the CAHSEE which includes math to Alg 2 and basic grammar, a majority from my school passed. Standardized tests isn't unfair because students can simply switch schools if they feel their district is too lenient. As school districts see a decreasing amount of students attending they will naturally reform and increase quality to compete for students. As for the CEP evidence this shows that blacks need to work harder, they are not naturally dumb. Therefore the standardized test is crucial for the quality of education. C2: -There are numerous ways schools can receive money such as the amount of students attending, the intelligence of the students, etc. Again as described above standard test ranks schools and naturally schools compete for the top to gain students and impacts include increasing the housing market, population, and overall the income of the government to prevent furloughs. An example would be the competing ranks of colleges. Say we don't have standard tests requirements then these way low students would graduate and end up in the streets because they simply cannot comprehend a job application, how did you achieve fairness? -By educating the average to become more intelligent and adding the already brilliant we have a majority of intelligent citizens that are ready to work. As for the low students they can keep studying until they pass, thus they are able to at least read the job application rather than seeing them half-rotten on the streets in the future. sub a: High school students are becoming adults we don't require much creativity. Cutting out on arts, sports, and music for tests are justified because after all getting a steady job is more important than playing a guitar on the street hoping for money. Art has reach it's limit, limit's abstract. There could never be another type of art. Sports can be fundraised by players. Children can still express themselves through writing or clubs that are crucial for college acceptance. Tests do not limit schools instead they allow students to seek new alternatives. C3: This contention has no link to VC so it falls. If we wish to adopt Finland's method then it isn't just the standard test we must eliminate but our nation's morals, values, and virtue because Finland is different from the U.S. For example if we adopt China's education system then we are forging the future of communism. C4: This evidence contradicts with his VC and his position because the language section and math section are so low that poorly educated students can graduate so there is no need to remove the standardized test. My opponent also goes on to describe an alternative, this contradicts again because even if you can't pass the exit exam you will still graduate, thus requiring exit exams achieves fairness (supporting con's position). Not requiring it doesn't achieve fairness because the ones that party late at night that didn't have to sweat to graduate and the ones that study until 3am graduate, meaning both graduates but the one that studies adds more effort into graduation. If you put more effort on a science project, another student simply had his little brother doodle on his board on the last day and in the end you both tied for 1st place, is it fair for the other guy who didn't do anything to win? No, similarly here removing exit exams doesn't achieve fairness. If he wishes to keep this argument then his VC and position are invalid. In conclusion I have attacked all points made. His value and value criterion contradicts his position. For the reasons above public high school students are required to pass standard exam to graduate. It remains negated. Thank you. I look forward to your rebuttals.