Resolved: Public high school students in the United States ought be required to pass standardize

Can you say strawman? My opponent just makes one (really poor) link between his K of morality and the resolution, then extends it 1000 times throughout the case as if it supposedly takes out everything. I'll just take that out. ===== The Link ===== A. He makes the argument that Lincoln Douglas debate can only be moral because Lincoln and Douglas talked about slavery, which to him is a moral issue. He couldn't make a more irrelevant attack! 1. Ted Turner Debate (commonly known as Public Forum), by this logic, would be about television and broadcasting, as Ted Turner is a media mogul. It certainly isn't. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. The Lincoln Douglas debaters were not about the morality of slavery. The debates were part of Lincoln and Douglas's campaign for the Illinois Senate seat that was up for grabs, making them entirely political. Slavery was a major issue, but it was not the center of the debates. They were to decide the most qualified (political) candidate in a (political) election. 3. Slavery was a major political and economic issue of the time. Slavery played a large part in the South's economy. 4. My opponent's argument is completely nonsensical. He claims multiple times "morality does not exist." He clearly proves it. How, then, could the debate over slavery be a moral debate? If morality doesn't exist, it stands to reason that these debates weren't on a moral issue. 5. This is the biggest: My opponent has absolutely NO reason why this was a moral issue at all, except his claim "if that is not a moral topic, then by all means tell me what is" which is just an appeal to the authority of the judge. --- B. He completely ignores my point on the educational and competitive aspects of debate. I will repeat: My opponent makes 2 arguments: I. Morality doesn't exist. II. LD is a morals debate. Accepting both of these claims would lead to Lincoln Douglas being a completely pointless waste of time (that's bad.) Therefore, we have to reject one of the 2 claims in order to preserve the education and competition in LD debate. We can't reject argument I, my opponent clearly outlines that. So far as that is true, we have to reject argument II to give debate any value at all. My opponent says the opposite. We have two options: 1. Get rid of the idea of "LD is a morals debate" and keep the education, competition and entertainment of debating. 2. Continue to assert that "LD is a morals debate" for some unknown reason and destroy any value of debating. I have no idea why he continually concludes that we should go with option 2, as it has only negative implications. He simply asserts, to prove his point, that LD is probably about morals because it was started by slavery debates. That has nothing to do with my arguments at all! I am saying that we shouldn't concentrate on the moral aspect because it leads to uninformative discussions like this one instead of topics that matter, such as the resolution. He gives no reason why we shouldn't accept the decision that is better for debate as an activity, thus you choose option 1 and reject this argument of "LD = morals". --- C. My opponent is completely nonresponsive to point 2A. He doesn't even address the issue. My argument is: LD is not a morals debate. His argument is: That's wrong because LD is a morals debate. Now read the justifications for his logic: He has none! Just re-extend the argument that he completely fails to address that defining the resolution in a nonsensical way is bad. Scroll back up and read 2A if you want, he doesn't actually address it at all. --- D. The entirety of his attack on point 2B is an unwarranted blanket assertion based on his flawed opinion. My claim: None of the definitions of 'ought' have anything to do with morality, according to America's #1 dictionary. His claim: but "the word ought has moral implications" Just reject this crazy assertion based on the fact that he has no warrant. Read this link: http://www.merriam-webster.com... No definition of ought implies morality at all, so his claim is completely fallacious. --- E. My opponent doesn't define ought; accept my definition. It turns his link. I provided a definition of ought, along with 4 reasons why it is preferable. My opponent didn't just provided an unjustified definition; he forgot to provide one at all! To clarify: "Ought: used to express obligation , advisability , natural expectation , or logical consequence ... ...This is preferable because: 1. My opponent cites no source for his idea that 'ought' has something to do with morality. 2. Merriam-Webster Dictionary is the most commonly used dictionary, and thus the most reliable source. 3. Defining it in the way my opponent wants to or any way else makes no sense (see above arguments.) 4. The resolution is asking a question of policy, not morality. Would exit exams be a desirable policy or not?" This is the only definition in the round. It clearly refutes any such claims on my opponent's case that ought somehow forces us to debate a moral obligation. It, in fact, turns his link by proving that ought forces us not to debate a moral obligation because that isn't even an accepted definition of ought. ======= Conclusion ======= You, the judge, have 5 clear reasons why his assertion that "Morality does not exist" has nothing to do with the resolution "Public high school students in the United States ought not be required to pass standardized exit exams in order to graduate." His case is completely off topic and has no reason to negate the resolution. Any one of the 5 reasons is sufficient to prove this. ==== Impact ==== 1. My opponent has generated no offensive arguments in this debate. He repeatedly attacks the concept of morality. I have shown multiple times why morality has nothing to do with this resolution. I have a standard that is completely independent of morality. He isn't providing a clash here at all. 2. I have a clear link back to the standard of 'ensuring minimum competency.' This is the only offense in the round. There are advantages to these exit exams (ensuring minimum competency) and no disadvantages at all (my opponent provides none.) These exams are no cost, all benefit, so you affirm.