The Instigator
Garrett1
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Charlie_Danger
Con (against)
Winning
18 Points

Public high school students ought not be required to pass standardized 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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/19/2009 Category: Education
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 5,508 times Debate No: 9498
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (3)

 

Garrett1

Pro

I affirm the resolution that Public High School students in the United States ought not be required to pass standardized exams in order to graduate.

I order to clarify the round I tender the following definitions as is in Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

Standardize
To bring into conformity with a standard
Exam
An exercise designed to test qualification of knowledge
Graduate
To pass from on level of experience, proficiency, or prestige into a higher one
The value for the round is Societal Welfare through Justice as Fairness. Philosopher John Rawls say that Justice "is the first virtue of social institution, as truth is to systems of thought." This means that the first obligation of our decision-making here is Justice. In order to consider anything else throughout the round we must first create a fundamentally sound Society with Justice.

The criterion for this round must therefore be minimizing unjust inequalities. Rawls had two principles which, when gratified, lead us to a Just society. By using my criterion we achieve the former.
In accordance with Rawls's second principle of justice, inequalities can be justified through one of two principles:
a.The inequality must be attached to a position accessible to every member of the community under some condition.
b.The inequality must be to the advantage of the least advantaged members of the community.
Observation one: The resolution asks us too really get down to the nitty gritty of one subject, which avenue of debate will better the students of our society in the United States? Well, to answer this question we have to look to impacts. If we look at the impact of not having a sound community based on Justice then where will that lead us to? If we do not achieve justice at one of the simplest levels of our society, then how can we be expected to achieve it elsewhere within our Legal System? So, therefore Society must uphold fairness and equality in its education system in order for the society to be considered fair.
Contention one: Standardized exit exams unfairly examine students of different intelligences.
In the 1940's a huge discovery was made concerning the human brain. A surgeon, Brian Sperry was performing a relatively new procedure, the corpus callosotomy, where the corpus callosumin the patients brain is severed. He discovered that the left half of our brains and the right half of out brains work independently of each other and communicate through the corpus callosum. Sperry's patients acted like two separate people. One half of their body could easily recognize a pencil if it was handed to them and explain how it was used but could barely right with it. The other half could easily write with the pencil, but had trouble naming it or describing it. This is because our left brains work logically and analytically and learn facts and figures. Out right brains work creatively and spatially and learn actions and how to perform them.
In "A Whole New Mind", a New Your Times Best-Seller on psychoanalysis, Daniel Pink claims that "the shift in power has been made from left-brain to right-brain thinkers. The 21st century will put far more value on the creative, spaial intelligence of right-brained thinkers than the logical, analytical left-brained thinkers."
The left brain oriented person can answer questions and take tests. The righ brain oriented person can demonstrate how things are done. Left-brained thinkers will be far less impacted by the test, because it tests them on exactly what they're good at, answering questions. This causes a disparaging inequality between the two �€˜intelligences,' which certainly isn't accessible to every member of the community, one of Rawls's criteria for fairness.

For the safety of my debate case I will reveal no more than this. I must compete in actual rounds this year!
Charlie_Danger

Con

I negate: "Resolved: Public High School students in the United States ought not be required to pass standardized exams in order to graduate"

I accept my opponent's definitions, but point out that if he addresses definition-based semantics in his next speech, he will not only be kicking his AC arguments, but bringing up a new constructive argument, which you would have to ignore.

My opponent proposes a value of social welfare, then turns and says we ought to value justice. Since my opponent only explained and supported justice, I will address this. Do not let him get up and make a moving target argument in the next speech.
I ask, why is justice relevant to the round? To "create a fundamentally sound Society"? This is the only link that my opponent makes in the round. You ignore this because he has no link, making it impossible to impact to. I, as the negative, would not be able to, whereas he could just provide a cop-out argument stating how his Value and Criterion are basically the same thing, thus linking them, which you must disregard.

I propose the alternative criterion of Social Welfare, being relevant to the topic. This means that whatever is best for high schoolers, and in turn, society, ought to win the round. I don't think you can get any more fair and clear than that.

Also, his criterion is as delinked and blippy as his value. In the first observation, he hints at my proposed criterion of social welfare through high schools: "which avenue of debate will better the students of our society in the United States?" in which I completely agree. But then he goes on to ramble about how we must acheive a just society, and how we must link to justice, but NEVER TELLS YOU WHY.

To simplify the standards, here's what we should do:
Use justice as the value, since we want what is most just and fair (aspects of Social Welfare) and everything for society.
Use my criterion as such, since it links to justice, and is easily attainable by my opponent.
I want the standards to be fair and non-semantic, so I propose the aforementioned. This is not difficult for my opponent to link to.

Moving on to the argument.

His solitary contention argues that SEE (Standardized exit exams) are unfair, because the tests only evaluate the left side of the brain.
1) He provides no link between the idea of "split brain" science and the left side being exceptional at tests.
2) Even if he did, it doesn't matter. He would be cold conceeding to the concept that tests accurately measure the left side of the brain correctly, which (TURN) means that this is a reason to Negate. Since the left side of the brain is correctly measured, SEE's accurately measure student's activity.
3) The negative impact he provides is irrelevant even to his standards. Instead of showing an inequality on a societal level, the worst he proves is that one side of your brain is tested more than the other in school.
4) His claim and his warrant have nothing to do with each other, disregard his tagline.

Now, I present a TURN that impacts to his repeated Rawl-based standards. "Exit Exams ARE egalitarian" Brookings 2001:
"A change in standards thus leads to gains for two of the three groups--those at the top, who graduate, and those at the bottom, who would not have graduated anyway. The losers are those in the middle, who would have graduated under a less stringent standard, but who now fail. Those individuals suffer from being pooled with a group that includes those less skilled than themselves (those without the diploma) instead of with those more skilled than themselves. No efficiency loss has occurred in this pure sorting model, only a distributional effect stemming from the individuals' relabeling. Do these losses constitute a compelling case against higher standards? The answer is no, for two reasons. First, in terms of the narrow choice between high and low cutoffs, a high cutoff does not necessarily lead to less egalitarian outcomes. The redistribution is from the losers in the middle to the winners at both the top and the bottom. Those with the most egalitarian preferences (so-called Rawlsians, after the philosopher John Rawls) place the highest priority on raising incomes at the bottom, so they should favor a rise in standards. The equity implications of higher standards are not limited to those who are at increased risk of failing but include those who would fail in any case, and whose stigma stands to be reduced." [1]
What this card explains is that removing a SEE hurts the majority of students, since the only winners in a low-value diploma are the utter failures who couldn't pass the exam, and the ones who would never have had an issue passing it. Furthermore, he explains how it is a contradiction to the Rawl theory of equity that my opponent endorces. This alone is reason to Negate.

As for case safety, I can imagine that smart LD debaters will be reading my every word. This is why I won't present an NC, and won't perform with the entirety of my skill. I promise this to all plagerizers:
If you want to steal my words, my cards, my case, you will never survive, and I will destroy you in-round.

Good luck and thanks to my opponent.

[1] Incentives and Equity under Standards-Based Reform. Julian R. Betts and Robert M. Costrell. Brookings Papers on Education Policy 2001 (2001) 9-74
Debate Round No. 1
Garrett1

Pro

Garrett1 forfeited this round.
Charlie_Danger

Con

I apologize for my opponent's absense.

Now, by LD rules, you would extend my arguments, and ignore any new arguments he makes in his next speech.
If that's the case, you already secure your vote for me.

EVEN THEN, we can just let my opponent post (if he does this time) his next speech, and allow me to refute his rebuttal in my last.

Either way, I'm okay with.

Good luck, and extend my arguments everyone.
Debate Round No. 2
Garrett1

Pro

Garrett1 forfeited this round.
Charlie_Danger

Con

Extend my arguments and vote for me.

Sorry for the lack of debate.
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by studentathletechristian8 7 years ago
studentathletechristian8
RFD:

B/A: Who cares.
Conduct: Con. Obviously.
S & G: Tied. Obviously.
Arguments: Con. Obviously.
Sources: Tied. Obviously.
Posted by Garrett1 7 years ago
Garrett1
Also, where you see my criterion is actually support for my criterion of Justice as Fairness.
Posted by Garrett1 7 years ago
Garrett1
I appologize for my misconstrude wording, if you must. I mean that my Value is Societal Wellfare THROUGH Justice, defined as Fairness.
Posted by Charlie_Danger 7 years ago
Charlie_Danger
One quick question that you should answer, or be subject to interpretation of the AC:

You say your value is Social Welfare, then you say it is Justice. Pick one. Justice? Fairness? Social Welfare?
Posted by Charlie_Danger 7 years ago
Charlie_Danger
I assume you wish for an LD format. I accept on these grounds, but note that I have the right to make rule/theory-based arguments.

Also, note that any part of your AC that you left out WILL NOT be discussed during the debate.
Posted by Garrett1 7 years ago
Garrett1
And on what grounds do you ind contradiction with my application of Rawls' theory?
Posted by Ovid 7 years ago
Ovid
well
best of luck Garrett
Posted by Ovid 7 years ago
Ovid
this was a major debate at greenhill high school in texas last week
Posted by untitled_entity 7 years ago
untitled_entity
ditto, Cody.
Posted by Cody_Franklin 7 years ago
Cody_Franklin
You know, it's the funniest thing: I've been reading A Theory of Justice recently (for like... the 6th or 7th time this year); a lot of your analysis and application of Rawls' philosophy is all kinds of wrong.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
Garrett1Charlie_DangerTied
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 studentathletechristian8 7 years ago
studentathletechristian8
Garrett1Charlie_DangerTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by Charlie_Danger 7 years ago
Charlie_Danger
Garrett1Charlie_DangerTied
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:07