Total votes: 8
Pro brings up a lot of benefits of standardized testing, his main point being that it is needed to assess students. Con brings up the negatives of standardized testing (such as stress and sometimes being inaccurate) but fails to properly address the need to assess students. Cons rebuttal to this is basically asking why schools can't look at things like grades, etc, to assess students. The issue pro brings with this is that homework and other things are easy to cheat on (they are brought home in most cases) and grades cannot fairly function without standardized testing. Con says we can use other methods like: Multiple measures, Portfolios, Sampling Game-based assessment, Social and emotional skills survey, Inspections, Low-stakes testing. The issue is that con doesn't explain how each of these methods can fairly assess student learning in a way that is competitive. If there is little competitiveness, how do schools separate the smart/hardworking from the dumb/lazy? All of these are things that are low-stakes (which is the point), which also means less competitiveness. If con made the argument that universities and other institutions of higher learning shouldn't be competitive, I would've had them won the debate as it justifies the low-stakes methods of testing, but right now there is no justification.
Pro accuses con of being a timewaster and puts a lackluster argument in R1 because he thinks con will full forfeit. While pro apologizes later, this still loses a conduct point. Regarding arguments con gives a contradiction in the Quran which pro meets with an argument that things could be interpreted differently, which doesn't show the lack of contradiction.
Originally I was going to put pro as the winner because they were on the person with an actual argument that wasn't absolutely horrific, although their argument seemed against converting to Buddism in some instances. That said, it appears that pro has plagiarized their argument. Because of that, it can be considered that con is the only one with an actual argument. Though it pains it greatly to give the point to a side whose argument is utterly nonsensical and ludicrous, it is still an argument in some regards and thus they (somehow) get the point.
Pro basically gives a single claim for how public transit could possibly help non-car owners while con responds with a well-formated argument that addresses the issue with evidence.
Con shows contradictions and pro doesn't show that these contradictions are wrong, but unnecessarily makes irrelevant arguments.
Best.Korea throws softball "contradictions" at Mall that aren't contradictions, despite the fact that there are plenty of actual contradictions in the bible that they neglect to bring up. Then, Best.Korea just forfeits in the last round.
Pro doesn't address the arguments of con on the basis that it is witness testimony, but fails to properly uphold that as a reason. Witness testimony is still a contradiction in the bible as con shows.
Pro forfeited every round.