Public High School Students ought not be Required to Pass Exit Exams to Graduate

My speech will be ordered to address his points in the same order that he originally made them, i.e. Overviews, NC, AC Overviews "Not making extra-topical arguments" He gives no clear definition of extra-topical that he can link to my case. Throughout my case, I clearly link standardized tests back to my criterion. He has no reason that my case is not topical except: "that it is a joke." He said it himself "He's going to get up and say in his next speech that he impacts to the resolution in each contention." He's totally right. Each of my contentions IS linked to SEEs. (Standardized Exit Exams) "he doesn't give us an alternative" C1. The alternative that solves my first contention is replacing pencils with "pens, markers, or other writing utensils, or even pencils with non-graphite centers." I stated that in my original case, as well as why we cannot use these alternatives on SEEs (because Scantrons only recognize #2 graphite). C2. The only alternative necessary to fix the problems in my second contention is to stop giving tests that simply ask for 'right or wrong.' In his last speech, he doesn't say why this is a bad thing. Now on his criterion: Before anything else, read his original statement, he never links academic achievement to the pursuit of happiness, that alone is enough to justify using mine. Further, At his p1: I'm lost here. Are you saying that golfing isn't a good thing simply because people enjoy it? If so, prove how the harms of golf outweigh the happiness that millions gain from it. At his p2: Mine outweighs his. Every student loses the ability to enjoy golf (and thus pursue happiness) not just the ones who have already played it. This is like me saying that most higher education isn't important because most people don't use it. It's the same logic. We have to give people the ABILITY to pursue happiness through all means, whether they do or not. Where I outweigh is the entertainment value argument. This affects millions of people internationally as well as US citizens, so my criterion covers a larger scope. At his p3: The resolution poses a statement, not a question. He doesn't give any justification why, even if the resolution asked a question, Academic Achievement is clear or direct. SEEs are a test of knowledge, not a tool used to augment knowledge, so academic achievement isn't direct anyway, it's an extrapolation he has made. His Only Contention HIS ENTIRE CASE IS BASED ON ONE PIECE OF EVIDENCE! Since we are debating LD, you could easily drop his argument right there, because there is no logical reason why SEEs achieve his criterion, just a single piece of evidence that he selected to prove it. Here's plenty of reasons why that's wrong: 1. The study is done by Norman Fredericksen. This person has no qualifications that he's given and the only reason this should be legitimate is that 'he had access to confidential data'. Why does that make Norman qualified at all? 2. He never gives any logical reason why SEEs cause this increase in knowledge. Correlation does not imply causation. Neither his evidence, nor his analysis gives any reason why it is SEEs causing this increase and not something else, so his piece of evidence doesn't even prove his point. For example, an analogy. As ice cream sales increase, so do car thefts. This is true. However, the reason behind it is, in the summer people buy ice cream. In the winter, they don't. In the summer, people leave windows open on cars (so their cars are stolen). In the winter, that isn't the case. If we accepted his logic as true, I could read some evidence that says "we tested at times where ice cream sales were high vs. times where ice cream sales were low. There was a clear increase in car thefts as ice cream sales increased, so it is obvious that purchasing ice cream causes car thefts." If he can't give why SEEs actually caused increase in achievement (he hasn't) then his evidence is no more proof that SEEs help students learn, than my example is proof that ice cream sales cause car thefts. 3. He offers one single study, nothing more. I can TURN his case right here, because I have multiple pieces of evidence that prove the opposite: Standardized tests decrease student performance. For saving characters, I'm posting the source and summary. Ask in 'comments' and I'll happily post full cards. The point is that going by evidence alone I'll win, and he's given no logic to back his claim. A. Unlike standardized exit exams, the use of high-quality assessment methods, such as performances, exhibitions and portfolios, has been shown to promote the development of skills, knowledge and disposition actually valued in college and employment The National Center for Fair and Open Testing (Why Graduation Tests/Exit Exams Fail to Add Value to High School Diplomas, May 2, 2008) B. Research says alternatives better than exit exams. Elaine Meyer (School Stories, Teaching Away from the Test, April, 29, 2009) C. Alternatives do a better job. Freedom is a better policy. Rethinking Schools Online (Volume 13, No. 3, Alternatives to Standardized Tests, Spring 1999) D. Significant errors are made in SEEs. David Driscoll (commissioner of education in Massachusetts, frontline, PBS, May 24, 2001) E. SEEs Only measure socioeconomic status. Educational Research Newsletter (Pros and Cons of NCLB: What the research says, November 2006) All of these turn your C1 which, by your own criterion wins me the round. I have plenty more cards, but I don't want to simply turn this debate into throwing evidence around. The point I'm making is that you need logic to win, and he has none so his point is unjustified at best, but if we look at all the evidence presented, it's a reason to vote PRO. My C1 (first contention) 1. My argument isn't that pencils are required for high school. It's that they are required for SEEs. If you think otherwise, you'll need to provide an alternative and you haven't. I already proved that human grading won't work and you dropped that. 2. His 1st turn is irrelevant as is his 2nd. We solve all other graphite crises by using the pencil alternatives I've listed. The problem is that we can't use pencil alternatives on SEEs (see directly above). This means we CAN fix the problem of golf score sheet pencils by replacing them with alternatives, but we CAN'T fix the problem of using #2 pencils on SEEs because we don't have alternatives. 3. His source only mentions steel as an alternative. Refer to my original C1 where I tell you that steel production requires graphite as well, and thus isn't a substitute to graphite. He doesn't rebut this. 4. America is all about new ideas and new concepts. His argument that graphite harms golf's entertainment value is empirically denied. Millions of people watch golf and the PROs still use graphite. 5. My sources proved otherwise. CON will need some sources to support this claim. 2nd, even if he wins this point, that doesn't mean my impacts won't come, just that they will be delayed some. His p5 is irrelevant. My Contention Two 1. His example has nothing to do with the ability to golf at all, but I'll show you why it's a reason to vote for me anyway. He asks whether it is bad that drivers are taught that GREEN means go. The answer is YES. There are tons of extenuating circumstances, for example, a negligent driver running a red light. If you simply see GREEN and move forward in response, you'll be T-boned by the oncoming car. SEEs put kids in the mindset that GREEN means go. They don't teach kids to think critically or how to react to an unforeseen circumstance. His example proves my case. I'll also offer a counter example of my own: whom will you marry? It's one of the most important decisions of your life, and there is no clear right or wrong answer that you can simply memorize. How will SEEs prepare you for that? 2. Read the last paragraph of my C2. It addresses this. He is mistaken.