The Sept/Oct exit exam resolution asks us to consider the features, aims, and methods of American public education.
The following is a list of some potential value/criterion pairs for either side of the resolution.
Remember that some of these pairs work best for one side, and that one of your main obligations is to prove your value superior to that of your opponent.
Also note that this is a work in progress. Don't see a pair you like? Suggest one in the comments, and I'll add it to the list.
One of the primary questions, when choosing a core value, is whether you should go with a value inherent in the resolution (and thus easy to warrant), or a larger value that might be "more valuable," but a more tenuous link. That's why I've divided value/criterion pairs into three categories.
Values Inherent in Education
V: Academic Rigor / Achievement
C: Universal high standards
V: Academic Rigor / Achievement
C: Accountability (Public accountability?)
V: Morality
C: Moral education / Socialization
V: Self-sufficiency
C: Increasing personal autonomy and educational choice / freedom
V: Personal Fulfillment
C: Well-rounded education / educating the whole child
Values to Which Public Education is Instrumental
In other words, what education is good for.
V: Societal Welfare
C: Equality of opportunity
V: Societal Welfare
C: Educational excellence
V: National Security
C: Educational excellence
V: Democracy
C: Educated citizenry
Values not necessarily inherent to education, but which are individually or societally important
V: Justice
C: Rawls' difference principle / reducing inequality
V: Democracy
C: Local control of education / Community Standards
V: Economic Stability
C: Workforce preparation through education
23 comments:
thank you for posting this :) i really love them because they get me off on the right foot :)
Why is everyone so focused on defending standardized exams for the negative? While you can do it and win, there are so many lines of attack against them that the prepared blocks are quite numerous.
Why not argue that the resolution is not talking about a static burden, but what public high school students should do on their way to graduation. This means that if there are no public high school students, then they cannot go down the affirmative's path to graduate, and we cannot affirm.
So, something like:
V- Educated Society
C- Privatization of Education via Voucher System.
The affirmative's entire case just become non-unique.
@ anonymous while I see your argument what would be the point of debating this resolution if there were no public high schools in the US. The resolution implies that there are and that we must determine whether Public High School students ought to pass an exam to grauduate.
@anonymous
I definitely agree with you. I have a similar negative case. It definitely takes a lot of the standard affirmative ground. However i should hope you will have blocks against the "resolution as an inverse truth statement" framework. I have a framework observation arguing that and its not something that is easily dismissible. you will need to fight for it. Using the Privatization case against such an affirmative is way too risky. It gives them the opportunity to take full advantage of the 2AR... So have another neg handy.
----
Also this is directed generally. But what is with this inclination to use criterion that restate the thesis of the case. for example Anon you proposed using "Privatization of Education via Voucher System" I would love to see somebody explain to me how Aff could win under such a criterion. Doing this essentially means it would be infinitely more strategic to run as a burdens case, which are not well received in many places. This is because using a criterion that the opposite side cannot win under defeats the purpose of actually using points to negate but instead just offer 15 justifications for the standard an an observation on why is you win the standard we negate.
Also if you enjoy such positions try looking up Critical Pedagogy. Very interesting, but also has a phenomenally large research burden and is very hard to run effectively.
Also some people you could try looking at: Michel de Montaigne, Albert Einstein,Rousseau,Habermas, and even Foucault.
The first two are rather simple positions based around critical thought and the positions get more interesting from there... If you are curious about how they can be applied effectively contact me privately. I will consider posting some of these positions but I have not decided the likelihood of them being blocked is or perhaps even worse, Bastardized.
Also I have alot of Framework/Resolution Analysis arguments available that I will post most of if asked.
mezland@gmail.com
@ anonymous while I see your argument what would be the point of debating this resolution if there were no public high schools in the US. The resolution implies that there are and that we must determine whether Public High School students ought to pass an exam to grauduate.
Woody:
Exactly. The affirmative upholds the resolution, the negative negates it. If the resolution implies that there are public high school students, and I prove that it's best not to have public high school students, then we can't affirm.
anonymous,
Turn. If public high school students escape the shackles of public education, then they won't have to take standardized exit exams to graduate, which affirms the resolution.
In other words, non-uniqueness cuts both ways.
Turn and turn again.
The resolution isn't talking about a static burden. The wording of the resolution (Resolved: Public high school students in the United States ought not be required to pass standardized exit exams TO GRADUATE.), implies a specific path that public high school students should take on the way to graduation, a path without standardized exit exams. If there are no public high school students, they cannot go down the affirmative's path on the way to graduation, since they aren't graduating at all. Subsequently, we cannot affirm.
Think of it like a game of monopoly. If there's nobody playing, they can't pass Go, or go down a specific path to pass Go. It's impossible.
Anonymous, I'm going to step outside this particular resolution for a moment, to ask what, if any, givens are allowed in debate. For instance, if the resolution says, "Resolved: nuclear weapons are immoral," I understand if someone wants to argue whether morality exists. But isn't it a given that, for the resolution to be debatable (as this resolution, and not a different resolution), in both the Aff and Neg world, nuclear weapons exist?
It's a roundabout way of asking whether the phrase "for the sake of argument" has any meaning.
Anonymous, I'm going to step outside this particular resolution for a moment, to ask what, if any, givens are allowed in debate. For instance, if the resolution says, "Resolved: nuclear weapons are immoral," I understand if someone wants to argue whether morality exists. But isn't it a given that, for the resolution to be debatable (as this resolution, and not a different resolution), in both the Aff and Neg world, nuclear weapons exist?
It's a roundabout way of asking whether the phrase "for the sake of argument" has any meaning.
No, it isn't a given. If the Negative fiats a CP that shows an end benefit out of not having something that is necessary to affirmation, we can't affirm. The resolution is still debatable, as the affirmative can attack the negative's counteradvocacy and disads for why the part of the resolution that is being attacked is good. Think of it like a Kritik that directly negates.
As for your example, I think my argument is intrinsic to resolutions talking about real world impacts, not necessarily moral judgments (although there will be many people who, as always, will argue that ought= morality). To cite another example, on the felons topic, if the negative can prove, somehow, that felons don't exist, then we can't affirm.
So im writing an aff case for this resolution and was going to do a value of a sustainable increase in societal welfare with an observation that says that any arguments that decrease societal welfare in the long run should be thrown out. How's that sound.
As for your example, I think my argument is intrinsic to resolutions talking about real world impacts, not necessarily moral judgments (although there will be many people who, as always, will argue that ought= morality). To cite another example, on the felons topic, if the negative can prove, somehow, that felons don't exist, then we can't affirm.
CAN YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN THIS. I DO NOT GET THE LOGIC BEHIND THIS.
@ John:
My point is that my approach will only work on certain resolutions. If a resolution is talking about a moral judgment implicity (i.e. it is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save more innocent people), then any argument that argues that it is not advisable to have a prerequisite to the resolution is negated by the resolution itself. In other words, if the resolution is that Apples are inherently just, any case arguing that having apples is bad just does not agree with the framework of the resolution.
If, however, on the international court topic (Resolved: The United States ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity.), I could prove that the existence of an international court was inherently bad, or that another court was better, then we should not affirm.
My negative value is Governmental Legitimacy and criterion is promoting societal welfare.
Basically:
1) Gov't has a moral obligation to provide education to all citizens --> it must also make sure it is doing this --> therefore it must have a GAUGE for this --> standardized exit exams are a good gauge --> a great way to gauge this well is to have a graduation requirement for the tests because people would try hard instead of being able to slack and fail when it's not high stakes.
Also gov't can distribute resources more equitably because of the gauge --> root out problems, find solutions using an objective standard.
Any thoughts?
Where is the link between V and C?
Also this sounds like a moral obligations case so try using a more deontological standard.
Im tired so I will try to give more feedback later.
Basically the argument uses the Rousseau card and says that the only way for the government to be legitimate is to promote societal welfare.
The arguments lead to the fact that SEEs are the only way for the government to objectively and effectively measure whether it does a good job of promoting societal welfare (education --> sustains society, promotes welfare); in other words,
without SEEs, the government can't measure education
if it cant measure whether it's doing its job, it's illegitimate.
If its illegitimate, this (going to the Rousseau card) creates chaos and instability, and revolt.
Any ideas?
Tournament saturday!
could you try to use the value of equality for aff, if you say that the h.s.e.e are inherently biased
Sure. I had that against me.
At CSU Long Beach in the Novice LD Finals Brentwood ran
V: Morality
VC: Maximizing Equality
It was kind of easy to take down though... I turned the entire case twice (basically, it's against morality to have obsolete diplomas because we are being dishonest when we tell students they are prepared when they might not be... lying isn't moral, and harming kids isn't moral.... also 2nd was that equality is ensured here in 2 ways: 1, an objective test prevents unfair "easy" or "hard" teachers from getting away with it, and 2 : it lets the government distribute resources more equitably to have more equality for disadvantaged students.
Just some quick results:
I won Novice LD @ Long Beach on a 3-0 decision, I was Neg.
I think my case of Governmental Legitimacy // Promoting educational development worked well
I'm entered in Damien College for open for 11/14, possibly USC open, definitely VBT< pepperdine, berkeley...
I'll get crushed in open I think :( but I'll learn
But as for your equality, I'd advise a simple Aff of "education // promoting ed development "
I need some ideas for aff value and criterion pairs! I have a week to write both cases because I decided this past weekend to do this topic at one tournament, I've got the neg case covered, any ideas??
Matt: would you please explain what you mean by "the resolution as an inverse truth statement". I do not understand, and explaining it could really help me write my Aff case.
Thanks for the hard work on this, Mr. Jim =]
Okay, so I know this topic ends this weekend, but I just found out I'm debating it tomorrow rather than the immunization one. =/
I'm setting my neg case right now, with the basic foundation being that, since we are a democratic government, we have a moral obligation to ensure that only those with the knowlege required to be an active member of society should recieve a diploma, seeing that this diploma acts as a gateway to achievement pretty much anywhere further than a basic survival level.
The value, obviously, is democratic ideals. I'm just having trouble finding a definition that would work without totally opening up to a horrible slaughter in rebuttal.
Also, what could a good criterion be?
Then all I'd have to do with my contentions is show that testing is the best way to fulfill our moral obligation.
Any ideas would really help; I'm pretty much at meltdown point.
I doubt I'll actually get a response in time, but figured it was worth a shot. I use this site soo much haha.
Thanks a ton!
Cici,
There's definitely a connection between democracy and responsibility / competency. In a sample case based on an otherwise unrelated resolution, I made the link. You might find some of the thoughts there helpful.
I'd offer a value of "democratic principles" (which I'd define) and a criterion of responsible citizenry, or something like that.
Here are some of my further thoughts / links on democracy.
I'm always so amazed at your responses =]
This really helps. I think I have a solid case now.
Thanks so much!
Post a Comment