I've always believed that, in politics, there can be right answers and wrong answers — even if there's a debate.

An example of this is the climate change "debate," which really isn't much of a debate. The science is clear: Humans cause climate change, and the only reason there's a debate over it is that the mainstream media allows there to be one.

And while I'm not saying that spending time debating standardized testing is nearly as deadly as doing so with climate change, fixing our education is still incredibly important.

Education IS important, and we should be raising our eyebrows at the fact that it's as broken as it is.

Nevertheless, there's a debate around standardized testing and whether or not it should be continued. And here's the issue: When it comes to education, standardized testing has significantly broken it.

The SAT (and tests like it) pushes the education system to be as bad as it is. It's to blame for the bad wake-up times, the absurd class requirements, the poor grading system and the physical and intellectual consequences it can have on students' minds.

Standardized testing causes harm to education, and as a result, doesn't belong in our education system.

The test cannot properly measure intellect. It can predict IQ, but as stated in the beginning of the paper "What grades and achievement tests measure," personality, not IQ, is the best measurement of intelligence, and standardized testing (albeit better than IQ) is still a flawed predictor of those traits. And of course, the wealthy have significant advantages when it comes to getting a higher score and being able to game the test.

The only major rebuttal? These tests are really important for colleges. This wasn't even an argument against it, which means it's not much of a rebuttal. It's not even the point of the argument.

The closest thing to an actual fact-based rebuttal involves the advantages of the wealthier- and the pointing out that tests preparation usually won't jump points by 100, but rather around the ballpark of 10. Which is still incredibly significant in terms of the weight and competition it brings students to come admissions day. Which means it's more of a detailed fix than anything else.

When you look at the facts, there really is no second side of the debate. Standardized testing is not a good approach to education. But there is an illusion that there is a pro-side to standardized testing, that its implications are debatable.

Let's take a look at how this process is built.

By reasoning that the SAT is important for college success prediction, it shifts the argument, using college predictions as a basis for debate over the quality of education.It also implies an assumption that predicting college success is more important than educational quality. It's not.

If society isn't well-educated, everything within our economy performs less well. Meanwhile, college performance is essentially a sheet of paper with a bunch of letters on it that eventually just mean pass or fail.

Now that the assumption sneaked past the debating lines, the next order of business is to add legitimacy to the illusion that it's a side – especially when the argument gets rougher. It's distracting and adds an illusion of credibility (which, of course, is based on the irrelevant point to an argument).

And now, with major influencers like Patrick Bet-David, Elon Musk, Gary Vaynerchuck, and Seth Godin blasting serious truth bombs about the education system, adding legitimacy to the illusion has been spiked up. Quickly.

This was done mainly in the media. Two articles, one by the WSJ and another by a CNN Blog, stood on the irrelevant ground, fighting for how important and useful the SAT is for colleges. Neither mentioned the potential harm is has on the quality of education or problems with misrepresentation.

You'll also see that many of these articles supporting the test are authored in an opinion-based forum instead of on the mainstream site.And on top of that, they're written by authors affiliated with the CollegeBoard, either through funding or position. That's not to say that they will always mislead you, but there is certainly a high incentive to do so.

As a result, not all information is shared well in the article. It dismisses the scoring advantages of taking the PSAT, and similar practice tests, multiple times. It also doesn't dwell on the fact that the average point increase of around 20 points per section totals in 60 – well enough to take a student out of a quartile if they're on the edge.

But once again, that's not the major issue here. By not delivering all of the information, it can act as a major distraction. It will have people running from the other side trying to patch it up, shifting the debate floor to what is clearly a less relevant matter.

The next move? Convincing the audience that it's a debate. On its own, this actually isn't all too hard. As long as the factors that make up the visualization of a debate are present, it seems like one.

Imagine if I was trying to start a debate about the intellectual damage of some non-existent video game, and my opposition is composed of a bunch of people whose rebuttal is how accessible the game is. That's fairly irrelevant. But soon, IGN plasters that view as part of its opinion page, headlined with "This Video Game Still Matters." Inside, it goes on to argue that the game is very accessible, though accessibility isn't really relevant in the conversation.

Context is delivered in a somewhat misleading fashion, the main fighters are representatives of the video game company and they never actually end up addressing most of the accusations.

But on IGN, it's masked as a debate. They share the same floor with the people online who called it harmful. Representatives from the video game company call it "a side." The headlines tell us why the video game isn't so bad, and the article, goes on, not to debunk the argument that this game is harmful, but to praise its accessibility instead.

Now that everything is set up – the sources, the media, the headlines – the audience begins to think that the game's harmfulness is a debatable position. Because they think there are two sides.

Replace that video game with standardized testing, and it's the same thing.

The thing is, the media strives to appear "centrist" about its views. Companies like CNN will bring on climate change deniers and alt-right activists. The Guardian will interview people like Richard Spencer.

To many media companies, staying central is more important than being as correct as possible. And as a result, pro-testing agencies can get their word out and craft the illusion of debate.

And now that the audience is convinced that there's a debate, they may begin to debate it on their own time. And catching those who fall off topic in a household debate doesn't make headlines.

Many people may not even realize that the importance of a standardized test doesn't act as a relevant rebuttal to why the test is bad for education. The quality and importance of the test don't actually go hand in hand. They are two different subjects, independent of each other to a wide degree.

So what has started off as an imaginary side to a debate, crafted mainly by representatives, has now made its way into the realm of actual debate.

And just like that, another side was made.

But despite the noise, the facts are still here for us to see.

Standardized testing (along with its motives and implications) has damaged the system. There are many opportunities out there to significantly level up your point count (ballparking somewhere around 60 points with expensive test prep), and it's not able to measure intellect all too well.

Despite the noise, testing is bad. And no side arguing a less relevant matter can prove otherwise.