The Instigator
Con (against)
7 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
41 Points

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

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 7 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/24/2009 Category: Education
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,886 times Debate No: 9548
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (36)
Votes (7)




Hey, yeah, it's an LD topic debate. I have a schedule and plan to debate every topic on DDO at least once through my whole High School Debate Career, so, thanks for accepting.

I'll be taking the NEGATIVE for this debate, though I feel it may have a disadvantage topically.

I do this because this is the only way to maintain LD speaking format on DDO.
Round 1B = 1AC
Round 2A = 1NR
Round 2B = 1AR
Round 3A = 2NR
Round 3B = 2AR

With this, I also place a burden on my opponent: You must follow LD requirements.
This includes, but is not limited to:
-Not missing a speech or dropping an argument
-Not making abusive arguments (pertaining to NFL rules)
-Not make extra-topical arguments
Et cetera, et cetera

Also, voters: PLEASE LEAVE RFD'S
I don't care who you vote for, and I KNOW my opponent will agree, but PLEASE leave a reason.
Secondly, I ask that if you choose to vote, you vote based off of LD rules as well. This means that you should NOT vote if you do not understand them. Read one of the many websites online (I beg that you use NFLonline, because EVERY other one I have seen has indoctrinated their veiwers with unnecessary theory arguments hidden amoung text) and KNOW the debate before you vote. This is NOT Public-Forum Debate, and we do NOT want parent judges.


I will, however, post a little bit of my Negative Constructive:

"Resolved: Public High School Students in the United States ought not be required to Pass Standardized Exit Exams to Graduate" I negate.


I haven't been able to have anybody proof read this. Sorry for any errors that you might find.

I Affirm.

Standardized Test
A standardized test is a test administered and scored in a consistent manner. The tests are designed in such a way that the "questions, conditions for administering, scoring procedures, and interpretations are consistent" [1] and are "administered and scored in a predetermined, standard manner."
A 'Standardized Exit Exam' is a standardized test required at the end of high school in order to graduate.
1.^ Sylvan Learning glossary, retrieved online, source no longer available
2.^ Popham, J. (1999). Why standardized tests don't measure educational quality. Educational Leadership, 56(6), 8-15.

The value for this round is The Pursuit of Happiness.
1. It is a constitutional right. The resolution is specific to America, thus we agree that any violation of the pursuit of happiness is unjust.
2. We need the ability to pursue happiness in our lives to make them meaningful. Absent the ability to pursue happiness, where is my motivation to live? Taking away the right to pursue happiness devalues our lives and dehumanizes us.
3. People who are happy and have a positive mindset consistently perform better in most activities than those who are depressed, thus happiness has pragmatic benefits.

The criterion I will use to measure our ability to pursue happiness is: the ability to enjoy golf.

According to the National Golf Foundation, in America alone the number of people who play golf frequently is approximately 7 million, and the number who play golf recreationally when possible is nearly thrice that amount. Of channels dedicated to a specific sport, the Golf Channel was the second most viewed after Speed in a survey conducted by Sports Business Daily. The Golf Channel was also the fastest growing, its viewers having increased by 33% that year. ESPN airing of golf regularly brings in 1,000,000+ viewers with over 4.5 million watching Tiger Woods play in the US Open. Millions of people enjoy golf through playing or watching it, so harming the ability to enjoy golf is going to affect millions of people and their ability to pursue happiness.


Contention One: Standardized tests deplete the world's graphite resources.

Graphite is the material of choice for golf club shafts, which make up the majority of the club. The clubs in practically every professional golfer's bags are almost always graphite, Tiger Woods for example. In addition, graphite is also the best choice for amateurs. "Graphite shafts became popular among amateurs, because lighter weight helped generate increased club-head speed. The carbon fiber also dissipated some of the stinging vibrations that were caused by poorly struck shots." Without graphite clubs, gold would be far less enjoyable to both those who play golf and those who watch golf.

Most uses of graphite, including golf clubs, can be recycled. Pencil graphite, once put on paper, cannot be recycled, however. This means that the widespread use of pencils causes our stores of graphite to be ever depleting. This is bad for a multitude of reasons, for example:

1. The more we use pencils, the more we draw closer to the point where graphite clubs as we know them will be non-existent. This will make golf much less enjoyable to watch because the professionals won't be able to golf nearly as well with inferior clubs, and it will make golf much less enjoyable to play because it will be much more difficult and frustrating to play.

2. The only other even viable alternative to graphite in club shafts is steel. However, graphite is used in the process of making steel, so with this depletion of graphite steel golf clubs will not be an alternative either. This furthers the impacts of the above point 1.

3. With continued use of pencils depleting our stores of graphite, we are not far from a graphite shortage on our hands. Within the next 50 years, golf club prices could drastically increase due to the need for graphite rationing. This would make golf a classist game where poor people would lose the ability to effectively play golf because of their inability to now purchase decent clubs.

While most places where pencils are used in society (golf score cards being one example) can be replaced with pens, markers, or other writing utensils, or even pencils with non-graphite centers (see links for examples), standardized tests rely heavily on graphite pencils. These tests can only be administered effectively with the use of #2 (HB in many countries) pencils, with little variation. We do not have the technology in place to mechanically grade tests by any other means and human grading is not feasible because it allows for human error, is extremely time consuming and expensive, and gives students the possibility to bribe/ cheat/ manipulated scorers to obtain higher test scores.


Contention Two: The mindset standardization advocates is harmful to future golfers.

How do we standardize a test? We write an answer key that determines which answers are right and which are wrong, and the test is scored on how often the student gives the 'desired' response. This harms critical student's abilities to golf.

First, test takers are required to answer in accordance with some predetermined answer key. I have to give the answer that is generally accepted as correct in order for my answer to be counted right. This means that the only questions that can be on this test are the ones that require no actual thought. I simply memorize the correct answer and recite it. There is no way for students to be graded on how well they respond to questions with no clear answer, so there is no way to be sure that they can even think for themselves at all.

Second, there is no way to know how you got your answer. You either gave the right answer or you didn't, end of story. The test can't judge the reasoning behind your answer, and it can't ask you to show your work. There is no way it can know if you were able to come up with the conclusion on your own or if you just repeated what your teacher taught you verbatim. This means there is no way a standardized exam can test on anything more complex than the simplest questions of 'right or wrong?', 'yes or no?' and it can't determine any difference in whether you made a complete guess, if you just memorized and recited the response.

When we use a test as flawed as this as a stand-alone criterion to graduate, we inevitably force students to put a huge importance on it in their lives. This means prepping and studying to get ready. This entire system forces students to conform to the 'Right or Wrong' format of all standardized tests (not just multiple choice) which forces them into abiding by this system of thought. By doing this we severely impair their ability to play golf because when they get out on the golf course, they can't help but take what they've learned in school with them. Golf is not a game of right or wrong and yes or no. It requires skill and practical application. It requires logic and making decisions with no clear correct answer. By implementing standardized tests we teach students that those skills are unimportant, so when they go out to golf, they are unprepared and will do more poorly than if they were. Professionals who have gone through this post-standardization public school system will be affected, thus making competitive golf less enjoyable to watch, and people who play golf will play more poorly when suffering from this mindset, and will be less able to enjoy themselves when playing.

0 characters remaining.
Debate Round No. 1


First off, thank you for accepting the debate and the best of luck to you.
Second, [Overview ONE] I would like to quote the rules we agreed upon, more specifically "Not making extra-topical arguments" Read his AC and then look at the rules. ALL my opponent's arguments are out of the context of the resolution. He's going to get up and say in his next speech that he impacts to the resolution in each contention, but if we as voters and judges are going to be intellectually honest about this debate, you negate his AC on the grounds that it is a joke.
Overview TWO: My opponents contentions only criticize standardized tests. This is NOT sufficient to secure a vote for the Affirmative, because he doesn't give us an alternative. Sure, assume Standardized Exit Exams (SEE) are bad and all his negative impacts flow through, what changes in the Affirmative realm? He gives us no alternative and no solvency to the issue of measuring high school students' academic achievement. This is enough for you to negate on face, because there is no pragmatic difference in the status quo and the Affirmative realm.

I will accept my opponent's value of the pursuit of happiness.

However, I propose that we replace his criterion of the ability to enjoy golf with one of Academic Achievement. This is basically a localized version of the ideal of Maximizing Social Welfare, contextualized to the resolution. This is defined as what best helps students in their pyschological and physical well-being. You prefer my criterion over his because:
1) His criterion is irrelevant to the resolution. He explains that there is a large group of citizens who enjoy golf, but this does not give us any reason to support it. There is a great number of americans who hate certain races, do they deserve our praise and focus because of their mass?
2) My criterion outweighs his insofar as that all american citizens go to (or can go to) a public high school, which means that my criterion tiers into social welfare as a whole, thus impacting to EVERY citizen in the US. This out weighs the Affirmative's criterion because I impact to all of his golf population and the rest of the US.
3) This is the most direct and clear question that the resolution poses.

Negative Contentions:

Contention One: SEE's and High Stake Testing Improves Academic Acheivement
As examined in The Brookings Papers on Education Policy, studies show that exit exams contribute to student achievement: "Norman Fredericksen's study is the most valuable because he had access to confidential data on 1978 and 1986 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) test scores of public school students together with the location of the school they were attending. This enabled him to classify NAEP test takers in 1978 and 1986 by whether they lived in a state with high-stakes testing, moderate-stakes testing, or no- or low-stakes testing in 1986. His 1978 base year was before the introduction of minimum competency testing systems. Student data for both 1978 and 1986 were available for twenty-seven states. Fredericksen selected NAEP mathematics items that had been administered in both years and classified them into routine items (generally simple computation) and nonroutine items (assessing higher-order thinking skills). Using a difference of differences methodology, he compared the 1978 to 1986 change in percent correct for high-stakes states with the change in percent correct for low-stakes states. Because stakes applied to promotion decisions, graduation, schools, and individual students, he studied all three of the age groups assessed by NAEP. He found that 1978 to 1986 gains in percent correct for routine items were 7.9 percentage points higher for...seventeen-year-olds in high-stakes states than in low-stakes states."[1] As the study proves, it is clear that academic achievement is not only maintained but improved by standardized testing. This impacts back to the criterion of academic achievement directly, and tiers into the pursuit of happiness, because being a smarter human enables personal utility to be easier achieved on an individual and sociological level.

Affirmative Contentions:

C.1: In this argument, my opponent contends that golf club shafts (of choice) are made of graphite, which is not only best for golfers, but can be recycled, unlike pencil graphite. You reject this argument for many reasons:
1) Pencils are not required for classes in high school, in fact, they are often discouraged in comparison to gel pens and other more efficient writing objects because they do not smear with pressure, and stand out bolder (this is a large reason why older teachers prefer them) on paper so they are easier to see. Also, absolutely nowhere in the resolution did we say that standardized tests need to be bubble-sheets or even written tests. My opponent conceedes to this via frameworked definitions.
2) TURN. Pencils are therefore used more in golf (marking scores on a score sheet) than in high school classrooms. ALSO, TURN his own logic against him: "most places where pencils are used in society can be replaced with pens, markers, or other writing utensils, or even pencils with non-graphite centers" This quote forces one of my two arguments to be advanced next round, because if he says pens can replace pencils, argument one goes through, if he says they can't, then argument two goes through.
3) My opponent is playing up the useage of graphite in both high schools and golf. So-called "graphite stock" golf clubs actually contain very little graphite [2] as well as pencil 'lead', which isn't always graphite material anyway. This minimalizes his impacts to the point where they don't matter anymore.
4) He points out that the advantage to graphite clubs is that they let you put less effort into the swing, but get the same quality hit. This is bad for the golf community, esspecially the golf watching community, because it allows athletes get lazier and makes their job overly easy. This is proven to be a value that americans agree with when you look at emperical acts in other sports, such as the baseball league.
5) Graphite may be a finite resource, but it IS NOT in the red. Water is a finite resource, but right now we have plenty of it and we are going at a fixed and controlled rate. This is the same for graphite. My opponent has yet to prove that graphite: A. even IS a finite resource and B. that we are diminishing it at a rate that would cause us to want to change the status quo. (The same for the 'steel' argument) Until he does both, you drop this argument.

C.2: In this argument, the affirmative adheres to a false stereotype that is not supported in the resolution. We are discussing a form of test that is "standardized", which fits in my opponent's own biased definition as simply a test that is equitable insofar as the same via a standard. Reread my first argument against his C.1. This is enough to drop this argument, but even then, you negate because:
1) The vast majority, if not entirety of my opponent's C.2 impacts are NOT bad! He talks about how you have to know the right or wrong answer, and you have to learn to do so. If you are driving a car, and the light at an intersection is GREEN, you know that that means "Go", so you go, instead of stopping in the middle of trafic. Is this bad? Because according to my opponent's logic, it sure is.
2) This contention does not impact back to his standard, nor does it answer the resolution. Reread my C.1 arguments for more articulation on this.

I have little-no characters remaining, so I will stop the arguing here, and wish best of luck to my opponent.

[1] - The Role of End-of-Course Exams and Minimum Competency Exams in Standards-Based Reforms. John H. Bishop, Ferran Mane, Michael Bishop, and Joan Moriarty Brookings Papers on Education Policy 2001 (2001) 267-345
[2] -


My speech will be ordered to address his points in the same order that he originally made them, i.e. Overviews, NC, AC

"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.
Debate Round No. 2


Thank you for continuing this debate, and best of luck.
This speech will be designed to crystallize the flow, and then highlight key voter issues. Please remember that we are debating in LD format, which means that you ignore any new argument or response he makes in his next speech. (The 2AR is for summarization, not argumentation!)

On the overview, he doesn't address anything. He twice takes my words out of context, and addresses them, rather than the points themselves. On Overview 1, he ignores the most crucial part of the argument: "if we as voters and judges are going to be intellectually honest about this debate, you negate"
In his response to Overview 2, he makes a clear advocacy statement, which is sufficient for us to evaluate. As I continue, I will point out why this AFF Advocacy is bad, rather than arguing that he does not have one. (My direct argument against his Aff Advocacy was already stated in my last speech. Look at Arguments 1 & 2 against his C.1)

He argues that I don't link Academic Achievement to the Pursuit of Happiness, but I showed that I did: "...because being a smarter human enables personal utility to be easier achieved on an individual and sociological level..." in my last speech.
He continues and completely misconstrues my first argument (which is therefore extended) which simply said that the size or type of activity that certain people take pleasure in doing is not enough for us to weigh as a criterion. This is because we look at an extreme minority (as opposed to Academic Achievement, which measures ALL of society) and marginalize all people who are NOT in the group by valuing it as paramount.
His response to my second argument is completely dependent upon the assumption that all people take the same pleasure, same ability, and therefore same skill to play golf. (i.e. an even playing field, like academic achievement) If this were true, then we could plausibly measure the impacts of the "ability to enjoy golf", but taken that this is far from true, we ignore his response.
At the last Criterion argument, he responds by complaining about my word choice (the fact that I called the resolution a "question") which evades my actual argument. The actual argument is that my Criterion is the most relevant, and this goes extended. (And what I mean by the resolution "posing a question" is the fact that we, as debaters, are answering hidden questions about this topic. The very point of an argument is to answer a question, asked or unasked. This is an age-old NFL term, my apologies for the use of jargon I didn't clarify)

On the NC -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My opponent makes three obnoxious arguments against my negative contention, all of which are attempts to blur the truth and condemn statistics.
Preface) "HIS ENTIRE CASE IS BASED ON ONE PIECE OF EVIDENCE" Yes. It is. It was a collection of data gathered by the NAEP, the US's most respected and unbiased educational research group. Please do not complain about data that you are not informed of. I assumed that using the most known/respected think tank would be common knowledge, and even if it is not, it does not destroy the ideology behind it.
1) It doesn't matter who Norman Fredericksen is, or what he has done. The important and relevant thing to know is that he collected data, in front of and with the permission of the NAEP, and marked it. The Brookings Papers on Education Policy posted the analysis. My opponent is assuming that all the actors in this study were corrupt or unqualified, wild claims that he does not warrant (because he cannot) in the least bit.
2) My opponent must have not seen the last five lines of text in my Contention 1. Let me reiterate: NAEP scores are collected and evaluated. The degree of risk associated in standardized tests matches that of the increase in scores (i.e. Academic Achievement) IDENTICALLY. My opponent's only answer to this is a paranoid chaos-theory, that "correlation does not equal causation" which, if we are being intellectually honest, is asinine. It is up to you now, judge, to decide if two graphs with identical points are related to each other in the lease bit, or complete b.s.
3) Now he provides an over dramatic spiel of evidence, assuming that quantity overvalues quality. There are multiple issues with his argument:
a. I'm sorry that you are "low on characters", but so am I. The playing field is even in-round, and that means that our judges are going to ignore the hearsay you propose in all of your "cards". If you want to make an argument with evidence, you have to make the sacrifice I did (cut, post, analyse, impact) to make it valid. You did none of these, which makes the argument invalid.
b. Because he makes nothing more than a grand series of un-warranted one-sentence claims, you ignore them on the grounds that they are without warrant and impact.
c. Quantity does not measure quality. Since we haven't seen more than the titles of your cards, we have no way of deciding which study (studies) are better. That means we default to the Negative's evidence.

On the AC--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I will briefly address each of his contention one responses:
1) You have never proven that SEE's require pencils. Many SEE's are computerized, pen-assessable, and otherwise. I have already addressed this. Reread my argument and extend it.
2) You still haven't proven that SEE's require pencils. I have now proven the contrary multiple times. Extend my argument(s)
3) You haven't proven that steel production somehow requires graphite (which doesn't make ANY sense) at any point. Extend my argument
4) Just because some use it does not mean it is the best. This response ignores my argument. Please reread and extend
5) I address and turn many of your sources, as well as labeling my own. This both defeats your argument here and supplies me with the "Sources" vote point.
All in all, my arguments against his C.1 are either misinterpreted or attacked via the Strawman Fallacy (ask Kleptin) which makes you keep the turns I made before.

Again, but with the C.2. (Sorry, but I AM running low on space...)
1) This "turn" is false. If we are going to break my analogy down, thus making it less relevant, I can get up and say: "That's not School's fault, it is the DMV's." Either way, the big stipulation in this argument is that my opponent assumes that the material on the test cannot be answered. This is completely false. SEE's test basic knowledge, NOT GENERAL, SOCIAL, OR LIBERAL ARTS KNOWLEDGE. This is what a test question looks like: 2+70=? (How many answers are there to this question?) Open-ended questions are not testible in the means we have been discussing. NOTE that if he argues any negative impacts to this type of testing, it is against the rules. (See first statement)
2) This statement means and changes nothing. See previous argument and argument above. Extend.

Your first, foremost, and most key voter issue is the Pencil vs. Pen stipulation.
I addressed this multiple times, this speech, last speech, and all were still not addressed by my opponent. He defends all of his arguments (in the C.1) with the claim that golfers can use replacements to pencils, whereas SEE's REQUIRE pencils. HE HAS NOT PROVEN THIS. I have proven the opposite. Reread the speeches, and note this reason to NEGATE.

Second is my NC.
If you would kindly reread the flow about my contention, you will see how it still is standing, and how the hard facts outweigh my opponent's barely-relevant banter.

Third is his AC.
As you have been reading, I have directly addressed and defeated all of his arguments.


Thus, you negate.


No need to worry about me making new arguments in the 2AR, Charlie. This will all be warranted in my previous speeches.

1st I'll address each point, then impact calculus at the end

overview 1: He still doesn't address why 'intellectual honesty' leads you to negate, just that it does. I believe I am intellectually honest and I still affirm.

overview 2: It seems we agree that I do have an advocacy. I'm glad this has been resolved.

Criterion Debate
I think this will be the meat of the criterion debate and where I win this round: A major flaw in his argument is that he devalues 'ability' (I put it in all caps for a reason) on my side of the resolution and not his, totally unfair.

He conceded in the 1NC that the ability to be happy (pursuit of happiness) is what is most important, rather than weighing overall happiness. Therefore, my argument stands that negating harms everyone because they lose the ABILITY to golf, and thus pursue happiness. This pretty much negates any argument he has made about 'not many people golf' because he is conceding that what is important is whether they can play, not whether they do, thus this is irrelevant.

EVEN IF you buy his argument (no idea why, he agrees to the value of Pursuit of Happiness) that that's not what matters, he conveniently doesn't apply this restriction to himself. I ask you, how many people use:
1. Calculus/ Trigonometry
2. Their knowledge of Russian flora and fauna
3. Their ability to tell you all of the capital cities of sub-saharan Africa?
He has no stats for these, and it's pretty safe to assume that the majority of Americans won't ever pursue happiness using their knowledge of the quadratic formula, therefore, if you apply this same argument that he made against my case, he has minimal impacts anyway because the vast majority of us aren't using (or even remembering) the higher level education that we learn in school.

FINALLY, he completely drops the argument I've made twice that while, under his Criterion, we are only helping Americans, my Criterion has worldwide benefits. He ignores the millions of golf enthusiasts world wide who lose their love of PRO golf because the American golfers do poorly. He also ignores the millions of golfers internationally who can't golf because of the graphite shortage caused by America's extravagant graphite usage.

I win the criterion debate on 3 levels. You only vote based on mine.
This boils down to whether we can accept his single citation as enough proof that these tests improve achievement. Let's go through his claims:
1. He doesn't address the fact that a study done by a single (fallible) person can easily have HUMAN error, just that this person is particularly qualified. As far as this as true (he doesn't dispute that Norman Fredericksen is capable of mistakes) it would be extremely foolish of us to base the entirety of this debate on this single person's study!
2. That's just more evidence. Reread any of his speeches, he definately doesn't give any reason WHY tests lead to achievement except that Mr. Norman's study says so. To rebut this he just gives more evidence saying that tests correlate to achievement.
You can even look at the example he gives: "decide if two graphs with identical points are related to each other in the lease bit"
Like I said in my original example, if you made a graph of ice cream sales vs. Car thefts it would be VERY strongly correlated. We can't just trust this correlation to mean causation and his case certainly never explains what that cause is.
3. My entire claim was that there is evidence on both sides (particularly mine as my examples showed) and that we shouldn't except 1 study by 1 person over all other. He addresses the 'quality' of my cards and really nothing more. He still concedes that there is evidence to support my side, too, so you can't vote for him based just on evidence any more than you can for me.

1. This idea that we can have computerized, pen assessable exams is
a. a new argument that he didn't address in his last speech
b. unwarranted, no source that these are even possible
c. computers are grossly expensive and prone to score manipulation via viruses/ hacks and pen assessable grading machines don't currently exist.
3. "I have proven the contrary multiple times" Read. Nowhere in his last 1NC why SEEs can be graded without pencils. He's just lying here.
4. Graphite is by far the best type of golf club. Read my sources, then read his (oh wait!) and try to find an alternative that hasn't been mentioned.
5. I have multiple sources. He has 1 saying that clubs are part graphite, part steel. Apply the argument he dropped that steel production requires graphite (
I win p5 and your vote on 'sources'

I'm not sure what he is trying to prove, but what he is proving in this rebuttal is that you should bote PRO. Go to the AC which says the PROBLEM with these tests is that they have a pretermined, closed-minded desired response and that this is not conducive to golf or true education. Now look at his rebuttal and see if this doesn't prove my point:

1. "This is what a test question looks like: 2+70=? (How many answers are there to this question?)"
There is a single possible answer that isn't up for analysis or interpretation.

"Open-ended questions are not testible in the means we have been discussing."
This is my point verbatim...
Life is full of open ended questions which can't be tested on his flawed tests.

2. My statement was one of many open ended questions we stould be prepared for in life. He just decides that it should be deemed irrelevant and that it isn't worthy of a rebuttal. That certainly isn't true!

He doesn't argue that the close-mindedness of these tests is a bad thing. He even goes so far as to reaffirm the close-minded single answer responses of these tests (read above quotes). He's arguing against himself, so my C2 stands and is cufficient reason to affirm.
His voting issues
1. He has no viable alternatives. Read the 1NC. He doesn't give an alternative. Read the 1NR he briefly mentions 2 (new) alternatives with no warrants. I easily showed why they aren't reliable. This is a voter for me, not him.

2. His 'NC' is just a single statistic. Hardly a voting issue. Read my numerous arguments about why this single, fallible statistic can never justify a win for him, expecially in LD debate. Without his 1 piece of evidence, he has no offense.

3. He has 'directly addressed all of my arguments' when pigs fly. Just look at what he has dropped:
a. There are no alternative ways to administer these exams.
b. There are no alternative golf club materials to graphite or steel (which requires graphite.)
c. Standardized Exams have close minded questions (he didn't drop this; he actually agreed with it!)
d. Close minded questions are bad, for golf and for education.
He doesn't even have a reason left to vote for him! There is no reason you'll ever give CON a win. Now look at all the REAL impacts.

CON: No logical reason it increases academics, just 1 study by 1 person
PRO: CON concedes exams only have close ended questions (he even gives us an example )AND that this is a bad thing. My C2 proves affirming increases academics by stopping this abuse of critical thinking skill.

I win by his standard (academics), but more importantly I win by mine:

CON: Never remotely links exit exams to golf. Absolutely no reason to win.
PRO: Extend the multiple arguments I've made that he has dropped:
1. No alternatives to pencils on these exams
2. No alternatives to graphite/steel clubs
3. Exams will have close minded questions
4. these 1 answer questions are bad for education and for golf.

I have a clear-cut better criterion in multiple ways. His case doesn't even mention it. My case clearly supports it. I win by his criterion too, anyway. Vote PRO.
Debate Round No. 3
36 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Charlie_Danger 7 years ago
I'm gonna put this debate in my pile of vote-bombs. There's a sticky note on top of it that says: "patsox/lightningrod/other accounts?"
Posted by Nails 7 years ago
Personally, I've never agreed with the negative's (in this case, affirmative's) ability to skip out on an alternative. It allows you the ability to just run straight disads and how do we determine how bad is bad enough not to affirm (in this case, negate)?

I think the affirmative and negative aren't debating whether affirming the resolution would be 'good,' but that it would be better than whatever the negative advocates. There doesn't need to be any specific plan, but there has to be a general idea of what happens if we negate, so that we compare the two sides of the resolution.
Posted by Cody_Franklin 7 years ago
I swear, Charlie, for a person who loves LD, you should know that solvency and alternatives are irrelevant to a legitimate affirmative case; the affirmative's only burden is to prove that students ought not be required to pass standardized exit exams to graduate; the resolution doesn't ask for a better alternative, and it certainly doesn't ask him to solve any flaws in the system; oddly enough, your unreasonable burden on the affirmative goes against the rule that you posted about not using abusive argumentation.
Posted by Nails 7 years ago
As happy as I am to be winning by so much, it is depressing that there hasn't been a single comment explaining why.
Posted by alto2osu 7 years ago
Nay to people who vote w/o RFDs... I still haven't had a chance to really sit down and write mine, so I haven't voted.
Posted by alto2osu 7 years ago
I know :) The member number just guarantees that, if there are several of you (as in members in the nation that share your name), you pinpoint your record faster. It's like doing a traffic ticket search using your driver's license number v. your name: one's just more efficient, but they are both effective.
Posted by Charlie_Danger 7 years ago
41 points and NO RFD's.

Not your fault, Nails (I hope), but someone is trying to mess with me.
Posted by Nails 7 years ago
alto, you don't even need your member number. Just search for your first and last name and graduation year.
Posted by sadolite 7 years ago
Two future politicians, 48,000 letters put together to make 8,000 words that say nothing. No vote and minutes of my life I will never get back. Damn!!!
Posted by alto2osu 7 years ago
And, not that I want to like encourage the testosterone NFL fest going on, but Cale, if you are interested in your point total for NFL just because it would be cool to know (not necessarily publish it here), you only need your full name (as it appears in the NFL program-- talk to your coach) and your member number. In fact, If you PM'd me your name and school name, I could look it up for you :) All of it is public information.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by pcmbrown 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by dobsondebator 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by number5rules 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by Nails 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by atheistman 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Charlie_Danger 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by wonderwoman 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07