Total Posts:17|Showing Posts:1-17
Jump to topic:

Neg case

dan1
Posts: 5
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2009 11:16:16 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Anyone can you kritike me case

Negative Constructive
Resolved: Public high school students in the United States ought not
be required to pass standardized exit exams to graduate.

Observation 1: Moral Obligation
In the resolution the word "Ought" is used to hold the resolution to a moral obligation. Meaning he is arguing that we are morally obligated to remove the necessity to pass exit exams in order to graduate. Now, in order for my opponent to uphold the resolution, he must do the following: 1) Prove his system of morality that obligates us to remove the necessity to pass exit exams in order to graduate. 2) Prove that removing the necessity to pass exit exams will be beneficial.

Burden: Since I am going to prove in my case how the public school system does not teach the students, even the most basic knowledge, the AFF must give an alternative to standardized tests. He must do this because we can not leave our current public school system this way.

Valued Premise: Quality Education,
Quality education is a key component for a nation's youth if a bright future is ahead. Research has shown that since 1983 10 million 12th graders were unable to read at a basic level, and 20 million could not do basic math, also 25 million did not know the essentials of US history. In 1995 nearly 30% of first time college freshman enrolled in at least 1 remedial course to compensate for a sub-par high school education. "Exit exams can be a critical lever or incentive for encouraging kids to reach higher standards," said Matt Gandal, vice president of Achieve, Inc. We need standardized exit exams.

Valued Criterion: Encourage Public schools,
If we administrate standardized tests we can measure how good, or poorly a public school is doing. If there are failures the school will lose its funding, because we know that the school has not properly taught their student. With my VC we can adequately measure the school's performance. We are giving incentives to public schools to teach their students well, because with standardized test we can truly measure how a school is teaching, and if there are still failures the school will lose the funding it was getting.

Contention 1: Tests measure schools
Standardized exit exams provide a measurement of how well or how poorly schools are preparing their students. These exams serve as a guide to what needs to be improved within an educational system. Nothing can be improved without a measurement that determines whether it is getting better or worse. Standardized tests are needed to provide an objective measurement. Standardized tests are imperfect, but they can be reliably used to measure the most basic skills, such as how well a student can read do simple math, reading, and writing. Educational policy should take into account how well those basic skills are taught. They are reliable in the essence of measuring whether a person is functional in moving on in life with a proper education. Davenport community schools states on its website states the importance of standardized tests. 1) To report individual progress to students and their parents; Furthermore, standardized tests – and the results for schools and districts – have become more important in recent years with new requirements in both state and federal laws. The federal law, No Child Left Behind, outlines the degree of improvement that schools should make in student achievement on standardized tests each year. This federal law also stipulates the consequences for schools and districts that do not reach annual improvement goals.

Sub point A
Standardized exit exams are able to level the playing field of competing school systems. Although there will always be some sort of unfairness in these exams, they still provide the opportunity for different institutions to prepare students for the exam and the future as well.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2009 11:20:38 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
I'm not going to contribute to someone who calls me a "RETARD", and then tells me I'm insulting him, as if it was a complete blank slate and I started the throwing around of ad hominems, instead of doing it in retaliation.

"Screw you, get a life"
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
LB628
Posts: 176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2009 2:52:17 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Second and third burden are unwarranted. Why must the aff prove removing tests is beneficial, if all they have to show under the definition of ought as moral obligation is that obligation exists?
No explanation from the resolution as to why the aff must provide an alternative. You just say they have to.
SportsGuru
Posts: 1,648
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2009 6:50:33 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/26/2009 11:16:16 AM, dan1 wrote:
Anyone can you kritike me case

Negative Constructive
Resolved: Public high school students in the United States ought not
be required to pass standardized exit exams to graduate.

Observation 1: Moral Obligation
In the resolution the word "Ought" is used to hold the resolution to a moral obligation. Meaning he is arguing that we are morally obligated to remove the necessity to pass exit exams in order to graduate. Now, in order for my opponent to uphold the resolution, he must do the following: 1) Prove his system of morality that obligates us to remove the necessity to pass exit exams in order to graduate. 2) Prove that removing the necessity to pass exit exams will be beneficial.

Burden: Since I am going to prove in my case how the public school system does not teach the students, even the most basic knowledge, the AFF must give an alternative to standardized tests. He must do this because we can not leave our current public school system this way.

Valued Premise: Quality Education,
Quality education is a key component for a nation's youth if a bright future is ahead. Research has shown that since 1983 10 million 12th graders were unable to read at a basic level, and 20 million could not do basic math, also 25 million did not know the essentials of US history. In 1995 nearly 30% of first time college freshman enrolled in at least 1 remedial course to compensate for a sub-par high school education. "Exit exams can be a critical lever or incentive for encouraging kids to reach higher standards," said Matt Gandal, vice president of Achieve, Inc. We need standardized exit exams.

Valued Criterion: Encourage Public schools,
If we administrate standardized tests we can measure how good, or poorly a public school is doing. If there are failures the school will lose its funding, because we know that the school has not properly taught their student. With my VC we can adequately measure the school's performance. We are giving incentives to public schools to teach their students well, because with standardized test we can truly measure how a school is teaching, and if there are still failures the school will lose the funding it was getting.

Contention 1: Tests measure schools
Standardized exit exams provide a measurement of how well or how poorly schools are preparing their students. These exams serve as a guide to what needs to be improved within an educational system. Nothing can be improved without a measurement that determines whether it is getting better or worse. Standardized tests are needed to provide an objective measurement. Standardized tests are imperfect, but they can be reliably used to measure the most basic skills, such as how well a student can read do simple math, reading, and writing. Educational policy should take into account how well those basic skills are taught. They are reliable in the essence of measuring whether a person is functional in moving on in life with a proper education. Davenport community schools states on its website states the importance of standardized tests. 1) To report individual progress to students and their parents; Furthermore, standardized tests – and the results for schools and districts – have become more important in recent years with new requirements in both state and federal laws. The federal law, No Child Left Behind, outlines the degree of improvement that schools should make in student achievement on standardized tests each year. This federal law also stipulates the consequences for schools and districts that do not reach annual improvement goals.

Sub point A
Standardized exit exams are able to level the playing field of competing school systems. Although there will always be some sort of unfairness in these exams, they still provide the opportunity for different institutions to prepare students for the exam and the future as well.

Obviously, I have not given an aff, so that would change my rebuttal, (and sorry if some of this is phrased as if I am speaking to a judge) but:

Observation 1: moral obligation: morality is intersubjective; what you think is moral is different than say Charles Manson, or Ghandi. extremely vague

2: Burden 1 (within the observation paragraph): so I can make up my own morality system which obligates the removal of standardized testing and I fulfill this; leads to abuse/destruction of debate. Burden 2: If my created moral system obligates it, it is obviously benefical (at least morally); therefore, if I can create my own moral system, I wim

Burden: In NO WAY does the aff have to give an alternative; not only is this unfair to the neg itself (having to prepare for infinite alteratives) but the aff is not required by the resolution (WHICH IS WHAT LIMITS THE AFF) to give an alt. Also steals aff ground, such as rejecting the school system altogether

Value: extremely vague; no bright-line: cannot make definite difference between "quality" and "not qualty" education; that is the nature of qualitative things; and my value would probably be a pre-requiste to yours (ex. value is life: students have to be alive to have ANY eductation, much less quality); your statistics come before NCLB: can you prove NCLB has not changed the situation?

VC: public schoools not key to education: even if I accept the current education system and not go the "our school system is not educating" route, there are always private schools; vague as h$ll and no bright-line: what is "encouraging public schools"?; prefer my theoretical V and VC if for no other reason than that mine would certainly be much more specific than these, so it is clear what I am doing; also, this does not talk about exit exams SPECIFICALLY, and as we have seen since NCLB, these high stakes only encourage cheating, whether it be false reporting or ridiculously lowering the standards

Contention 1: yeah, cross-apply that tests encourage cheating and none of this talks about exit exams SPECIFICALLY, which is what this debate is about; thus this does not apply: for example an exit exam cannot "To report individual progress to students and their parents"; the test is supposed to be AFTER all the progress throughout the year

Sub-point A: Don't really get what you are saying here; if there is an unfairness prove it and also prove how AN EXIT EXAM SPECIFICALLY would get rid of it; also, how does having the minimum skills to pass a test "prepare students for the...future as well"?
SportsGuru
Posts: 1,648
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2009 8:23:30 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/26/2009 8:12:24 PM, dan1 wrote:
sport guru, read my first sentence of my C1:

Okay, assuming that statement is correct, why do students have to pass to graduate? If the whole benefit is merely to grade the schools, why involve the students at all?
Charlie_Danger
Posts: 303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2009 4:31:51 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
That case is pathetic.

I thought you said you WEREN'T running my ontology observation, which, by the way, was way underdeveloped. Go hard or go home, don't straddle the fence on something like this.

I'll write more specific stuff later, it's too late (or too early) for me right now...
http://www.Debate.org...
^Latest Debate^

http://www.Debate.org...
word

http://www.debate.org...
lolwut^

http://www.myspace.com...
^Not music, but music^

Music Line of The Day:
"She burns like the sun, and I can't turn away"
Charlie_Danger
Posts: 303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2009 4:50:59 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Okay.

The observation:
You propose that the resolution actually contextualizes morality, yet it is nowhere to be found in your standards. This is worse than attacking the AFF, because looking like a hypocrite that is full of sh*t is worse than looking like a debater that just had an argument thrown at him.

The Burden:
Do I really even have to address this? I mean, it has no warrant, no significance, no fairness, and more importantly, no logic. Arguing this would be like trying to invalidate your opponent because he debates BOTH sides of the resolution.

The Value:
...Is not a value. At least not with the rest of your standards. I can see this working as a sub-sect of topicality and social welfare, but again, your burden and Observation contradict the only logic that can be seen in your case so far, which is this.

The Criterion:
Do you know what a criterion is? It's something that the judge uses to evaluate the round. You are arguing and extremely abusive criterion, which states: "standardized tests measure how good, or poorly a public school is doing" If you think that turning the entire debate into standard semantics is a wise tactic, you will see otherwise when you get an opponent and/or judge smart enough to say: "ABUSE" The one word that auto-negates this valued criterion.

The Contention:
So, you start off by repeating what you argued in the VC, which wastes time the 1NR cannot afford, and then go on to argue (again) that we need to measure schools. Why? How does this link to your value? It does NOT. You waste all this time talking about measurement, but MISS the MOST IMPORTANT PART OF THE ARGUMENT. IMPACT. IMPACT. IMPACT. You have ZERO.
"Educational policy should take into account how well those basic skills are taught." WHY
"They are reliable in the essence of measuring whether a person is functional in moving on in life with a proper education." HOW
"The federal law, No Child Left Behind..." I would stop you RIGHT there, because NCLB is a terrible thing to mention on the NEG. There isn't any ground that NCLB EVER positively incentivized schools, since it's system was effectively giving money to rich schools and cutting funding for the poor.

Summary:

All in all, here are the big things:
1) THINK about what you are going to argue first.
2) KNOW what the f*ck you're going to argue, and make sure you don't hang yourself in your own Constructive
3) DON'T STEAL ARGUMENTS THAT YOU FOUND ON DDO
4) DON'T talk about NCLB
5) DON'T try to be abusive in the framework. Be nice, be fair, and THEN kill them with legit reasons why they are wrong
http://www.Debate.org...
^Latest Debate^

http://www.Debate.org...
word

http://www.debate.org...
lolwut^

http://www.myspace.com...
^Not music, but music^

Music Line of The Day:
"She burns like the sun, and I can't turn away"
dan1
Posts: 5
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2009 10:44:31 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
How is it abusive, all I'm saying is that standardized exit exams will encourage public schools to teach better, abusive how?
Metz
Posts: 14
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2009 3:09:05 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Okay.

Observation: You Just say "ought=moral obligation" but you don't really warrant that. A smart Affirmative will preempt this in the AC with a much stronger argument and then your in over your head. Also the second way they can achieve this really pointless. It pretty much says the Aff can Affirm by proving the resolution.

Burden: as others have pointed out you just make his claim but it really has no warrant whatsoever. Also Its completely absurd, If I can prove that tests are wrong the thats as far as my advocacy needs to go I dont need some random Alternative Solvency argument in there to affirm. I can Prove the resolution true w/out an alternative so anything else is just extra-topical which a smart debater will be like. Cool, I dont mention Alt. solvency to tests thats not my problem.

Value: Um... This is not a value. As I believe was mentioned earlier there is no brightline here. What exactly is a "quality education" all you do is say "education needs help, tests solve" you dont explain the value,show why its important or anything. If I were the Aff It would take 10 seconds to refute this.

Criterion: The Standard Pretty much says that there is no way the affirmative can win because its just not possible for them. It also Never says anything about why Tests encourage schools it just make that assumption that they do so. And Also once again, no brightline. What is "encouraging schools" do I achieve the standard if I tell them "you can do it!!!" There is also no link to the Value here. Why does encouraging schools promote quality education? Just because I am encouraged not to lie, cheat or steal doesnt mean that I wont do it. Its the same thing, encouraging schools doesnt ensure that they will perform better and even if they do it doesnt ensure that they will achieve quality. I Guess the Biggest Problems here are you need to link this and also GIVE ME A BRIGHTLINE!!!

Contention: PLEASE KILL ME!!!! you dont even mention the standard here. you warrant NOTHING! you Impact NOTHING! you just expect me to assume what your saying is right. All you are saying is "tests measure performance" which is A. Not warranted B. Not Impacted C. not linked to the standard and D. Doesn't actually negate the resolution. Just because tests have their purpose doesn't mean we should use them. Amphetamines have their purposes but are still illegal.

So I would advise, if you have your heart set on running this case.
1. on the observation establish the resolution as a negative moral obligation. I.e An obligation not to do something. What I would say would be something along the lines of "Ought is defined as a moral obligation. If the term ought is a moral obligation then that means the there is a moral obligation to not be required to have tests. for example if we were debating people Ought not Kill. The affirmative would affirm by saying that people have on obligation to not kill people. the two resolutions are exactly the same. They both have a group of people bound by the obligation and a thing they are obliged not to do." or something along those lines. I have not written a Negative case yet.

2. Either remove or put it later in the case nd warrant why a method of measurement is required then say if there is no other method then even though this one may or may not be ideal we still need it because there is no alternative

3. Define the value. Include Brightline.

4. Change the criterion to something like "Ensuring Educational sufficiency in schools" Give a brightline for ensuring, Define educational suffiancy and link it all together.

5. Warrant and impact the contention. Make sure you clearly link back to the standard and include weighing analysis
"And Thus Spake Zarathustra"-- Friedrich Nietzsche
Charlie_Danger
Posts: 303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2009 3:11:38 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/29/2009 10:44:31 AM, dan1 wrote:
How is it abusive, all I'm saying is that standardized exit exams will encourage public schools to teach better, abusive how?

Uhm, if you advocate your side in the standards they are abusive. Period. Again, standards are supposed to be agreed upon, the contentions are what you spend time arguing about in your limited time frame.

And HOW? You say we should measure school's performance, but how does this impact to your claim?
Before you answer: Turn. No Child Left Behind exemplified this theory of Measurement=Good and resulted in disastrous results that benefited only the rich, and not the US.
http://www.Debate.org...
^Latest Debate^

http://www.Debate.org...
word

http://www.debate.org...
lolwut^

http://www.myspace.com...
^Not music, but music^

Music Line of The Day:
"She burns like the sun, and I can't turn away"
Metz
Posts: 14
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2009 6:53:31 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/29/2009 3:11:38 PM, Charlie_Danger wrote:
At 8/29/2009 10:44:31 AM, dan1 wrote:
How is it abusive, all I'm saying is that standardized exit exams will encourage public schools to teach better, abusive how?

Uhm, if you advocate your side in the standards they are abusive. Period. Again, standards are supposed to be agreed upon, the contentions are what you spend time arguing about in your limited time frame.

And HOW? You say we should measure school's performance, but how does this impact to your claim?
Before you answer: Turn. No Child Left Behind exemplified this theory of Measurement=Good and resulted in disastrous results that benefited only the rich, and not the US.

I mean arguing a side in the standard doesn't necessarily equal abuse... its just bad case construction. Whats abusive is defining the standard in such a way that automatically goes one way. For example if you are running a utilitarian standard and u define Util and then say why you meet util. That's not necessarily abusive unless you try to extend that argument if the Aff/Neg does explicitly address it. If u include just a thesis than you will then further prove in the case and put it in the criterion description its not abusive just not a good strategy.
"And Thus Spake Zarathustra"-- Friedrich Nietzsche
Charlie_Danger
Posts: 303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2009 4:05:20 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/29/2009 6:53:31 PM, Metz wrote:
At 8/29/2009 3:11:38 PM, Charlie_Danger wrote:
At 8/29/2009 10:44:31 AM, dan1 wrote:
How is it abusive, all I'm saying is that standardized exit exams will encourage public schools to teach better, abusive how?

Uhm, if you advocate your side in the standards they are abusive. Period. Again, standards are supposed to be agreed upon, the contentions are what you spend time arguing about in your limited time frame.

And HOW? You say we should measure school's performance, but how does this impact to your claim?
Before you answer: Turn. No Child Left Behind exemplified this theory of Measurement=Good and resulted in disastrous results that benefited only the rich, and not the US.

I mean arguing a side in the standard doesn't necessarily equal abuse... its just bad case construction.

Wrong. It is abuse. It is against the rules. It is stupid. It is illegal. It is unethical. It is unsuccessful. If you need me to further clarify, I will look up more synonyms. If not, then you can either keep believing that it's okay, and hope you get a parent judge who will buy your PFD B.S., or you can learn how to debate and move the arguments to the argument section, instead of the "Here's how we should measure the round" section.
http://www.Debate.org...
^Latest Debate^

http://www.Debate.org...
word

http://www.debate.org...
lolwut^

http://www.myspace.com...
^Not music, but music^

Music Line of The Day:
"She burns like the sun, and I can't turn away"
Metz
Posts: 14
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2009 12:20:35 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/30/2009 4:05:20 AM, Charlie_Danger wrote:
At 8/29/2009 6:53:31 PM, Metz wrote:
At 8/29/2009 3:11:38 PM, Charlie_Danger wrote:
At 8/29/2009 10:44:31 AM, dan1 wrote:
How is it abusive, all I'm saying is that standardized exit exams will encourage public schools to teach better, abusive how?

Uhm, if you advocate your side in the standards they are abusive. Period. Again, standards are supposed to be agreed upon, the contentions are what you spend time arguing about in your limited time frame.

And HOW? You say we should measure school's performance, but how does this impact to your claim?
Before you answer: Turn. No Child Left Behind exemplified this theory of Measurement=Good and resulted in disastrous results that benefited only the rich, and not the US.

I mean arguing a side in the standard doesn't necessarily equal abuse... its just bad case construction.

Wrong. It is abuse. It is against the rules. It is stupid. It is illegal. It is unethical. It is unsuccessful. If you need me to further clarify, I will look up more synonyms. If not, then you can either keep believing that it's okay, and hope you get a parent judge who will buy your PFD B.S., or you can learn how to debate and move the arguments to the argument section, instead of the "Here's how we should measure the round" section.

The rules? Where would one find the list of LD "rules"? Second of all I did say it was generally a bad idea to do it. But its not against the rules to do it, If I wanted to try to define someone out of a round thats fine... people will challenge it. Ever heard of an A priori? Those are legit, and alot of them are just defining the Negative out... So Im not sure who told you that if there is an argument in the standard that you lose, but they are dead wrong. Look I have done a hell of alot more debating than you and I have seen it done quite a lot. The Colorado guy that took 4th at nationals? he would make arguments in the standard sometimes. And nobody said that was "against the rules" There are multiple ways to debate, not just yours.
"And Thus Spake Zarathustra"-- Friedrich Nietzsche
Metz
Posts: 14
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2009 12:25:08 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
You cant call something abuse unless it actually abuses. And you cant just be like "thats against the rules, you lose" Thats the point of theory. There is no grand rule book of LD that says "multiple necessary but insufficient standards are bad" or "multiple a priori's bad" Thats why people run theory shells on such an argument, and If you can think of ONE good theory standard that links to a voter than calls making an argument in the standard abuse I will be surprised.
"And Thus Spake Zarathustra"-- Friedrich Nietzsche
Charlie_Danger
Posts: 303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2009 1:46:05 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/30/2009 12:20:35 PM, Metz wrote:
At 8/30/2009 4:05:20 AM, Charlie_Danger wrote:
At 8/29/2009 6:53:31 PM, Metz wrote:
At 8/29/2009 3:11:38 PM, Charlie_Danger wrote:
At 8/29/2009 10:44:31 AM, dan1 wrote:
How is it abusive, all I'm saying is that standardized exit exams will encourage public schools to teach better, abusive how?

Uhm, if you advocate your side in the standards they are abusive. Period. Again, standards are supposed to be agreed upon, the contentions are what you spend time arguing about in your limited time frame.

And HOW? You say we should measure school's performance, but how does this impact to your claim?
Before you answer: Turn. No Child Left Behind exemplified this theory of Measurement=Good and resulted in disastrous results that benefited only the rich, and not the US.

I mean arguing a side in the standard doesn't necessarily equal abuse... its just bad case construction.

Wrong. It is abuse. It is against the rules. It is stupid. It is illegal. It is unethical. It is unsuccessful. If you need me to further clarify, I will look up more synonyms. If not, then you can either keep believing that it's okay, and hope you get a parent judge who will buy your PFD B.S., or you can learn how to debate and move the arguments to the argument section, instead of the "Here's how we should measure the round" section.

The rules? Where would one find the list of LD "rules"? Second of all I did say it was generally a bad idea to do it. But its not against the rules to do it, If I wanted to try to define someone out of a round thats fine... people will challenge it. Ever heard of an A priori? Those are legit, and alot of them are just defining the Negative out... So Im not sure who told you that if there is an argument in the standard that you lose, but they are dead wrong. Look I have done a hell of alot more debating than you and I have seen it done quite a lot. The Colorado guy that took 4th at nationals? he would make arguments in the standard sometimes. And nobody said that was "against the rules" There are multiple ways to debate, not just yours.

The colorado guy who got fourth at nationals? Uhm, lol!
Nationals is the only overly traditional and string-pulled tournament still around today. I would argue this more, but I'm not gonna waste my time.

Good luck then. If you guys in Colorado or New Jersey are okay with running abusive cases, and you're judges don't really care, then more power to ya. I, for one, prefer to fight fair, and use evidence, and address the resolution.

Oh, and I would say that a friend of mine, Adam Chilton, who won nationals and agrees with me matters more than you, a nobody, who won't do anything in their career if they plan on using sleaze tactics to climb the ladder.
http://www.Debate.org...
^Latest Debate^

http://www.Debate.org...
word

http://www.debate.org...
lolwut^

http://www.myspace.com...
^Not music, but music^

Music Line of The Day:
"She burns like the sun, and I can't turn away"
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2009 12:51:31 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/6/2009 1:46:05 PM, Charlie_Danger wrote:
At 8/30/2009 12:20:35 PM, Metz wrote:
At 8/30/2009 4:05:20 AM, Charlie_Danger wrote:
At 8/29/2009 6:53:31 PM, Metz wrote:
At 8/29/2009 3:11:38 PM, Charlie_Danger wrote:
At 8/29/2009 10:44:31 AM, dan1 wrote:
How is it abusive, all I'm saying is that standardized exit exams will encourage public schools to teach better, abusive how?

Uhm, if you advocate your side in the standards they are abusive. Period. Again, standards are supposed to be agreed upon, the contentions are what you spend time arguing about in your limited time frame.

And HOW? You say we should measure school's performance, but how does this impact to your claim?
Before you answer: Turn. No Child Left Behind exemplified this theory of Measurement=Good and resulted in disastrous results that benefited only the rich, and not the US.

I mean arguing a side in the standard doesn't necessarily equal abuse... its just bad case construction.

Wrong. It is abuse. It is against the rules. It is stupid. It is illegal. It is unethical. It is unsuccessful. If you need me to further clarify, I will look up more synonyms. If not, then you can either keep believing that it's okay, and hope you get a parent judge who will buy your PFD B.S., or you can learn how to debate and move the arguments to the argument section, instead of the "Here's how we should measure the round" section.

The rules? Where would one find the list of LD "rules"? Second of all I did say it was generally a bad idea to do it. But its not against the rules to do it, If I wanted to try to define someone out of a round thats fine... people will challenge it. Ever heard of an A priori? Those are legit, and alot of them are just defining the Negative out... So Im not sure who told you that if there is an argument in the standard that you lose, but they are dead wrong. Look I have done a hell of alot more debating than you and I have seen it done quite a lot. The Colorado guy that took 4th at nationals? he would make arguments in the standard sometimes. And nobody said that was "against the rules" There are multiple ways to debate, not just yours.

The colorado guy who got fourth at nationals? Uhm, lol!
Nationals is the only overly traditional and string-pulled tournament still around today. I would argue this more, but I'm not gonna waste my time.

Good luck then. If you guys in Colorado or New Jersey are okay with running abusive cases, and you're judges don't really care, then more power to ya. I, for one, prefer to fight fair, and use evidence, and address the resolution.

Oh, and I would say that a friend of mine, Adam Chilton, who won nationals and agrees with me matters more than you, a nobody, who won't do anything in their career if they plan on using sleaze tactics to climb the ladder.

Tone it down or I'll report you.
The Cross.. the Cross.