This format is a little different, i don't know how it will work out. I really just have one contention that builds an angle, and i plan on operating from that angle in addressing my opponents case. I guess this would fall under the category of a flex negative case (from what i have heard about it) comments and critique very welcome.
Hello, my name is Skellie Hunt. I would like to thank the judges, timer, and my opponent for being here today. As the negative speaker, it is my burden to negate the resolution, which reads, “Resolved: when in conflict, idealism ought to be valued above pragmatism.” This resolution should be negated because of my value, which is balance.
My opponent has argued that idealism must be valued over pragmatism. I disagree, yet i also do not believe that pragmatism should be valued any higher than idealism.
I would contend that the idealistic and pragmatic approaches are both integral to analyzing and addressing a situation. Both are necessary aspects, and valuing one over the other will cause problems.
The idealist operates on the plane of what could be and what should be. He believes in ideals and makes all decisions based on those.
The pragmatist lives in the present and sees what is possible and what is not. His decisions are based on what is possible and practical.
Say a idealist believes that to climb mt everest would be a good thing. The pragmatist may well agree with that ideal, but he will be thinking more about the fact that he only has ten feet of rope as climbing equipment.
The problem here is that we are seeing people as 100% idealistic and 100% pragmatic. The fact is, no one on earth matches either one of those descriptions.
A pure idealist could be seen as a man who demands lumber in a grocery store. He has an ideal of obtaining lumber, yet he lacks the pragmatic ability to analyze the situation and see that lumber cannot be had in the grocery store.
Likewise, a pure pragmatist would wander aimlessly about not knowing what he was searching for. He would be so caught up in his surroundings that he could not think of his goal.
We should not value idealism or pragmatism over each other anymore than we should value one side of our brain over the other. Both are necessary and preform different purposes. When we place to much emphasis on either, we will fail. The paradox lies in our ability to hold in mind our ideal, and yet still understand reality. When we do both of these, we are able to think, "i need lumber, this is a grocery store. I will go to the hardware store."
When the we act solely based on our ideas and ignore our surroundings or vice versa, we are fools. Wisdom is not simply knowing what is right or knowing what is happening, it is knowing when to practically apply our ideals.
Now, my opponent stated that...
