Good afternoon/morning ladies and gentleman. I would like to thank the judge and timer for being here today. Without you, this debate round would not be possible. I would like to start off with a quote from Pearl S. Buck: “Life without idealism is empty indeed. We just hope to starve to death.”
I am going to continue by introducing the resolution to you. Resolved: When in conflict, idealism ought to be valued above pragmatism.
For clarification purposes, I will define a few of the terms found in the resolution. All of the definitions are from Merriam Webster’s Online Dictionary.
Conflict-Physical or mental struggle resulting from incompatible or opposing needs, drives, wishes, or external or internal demands
Idealism-The practice of taking right and wrong and living under their influence
Valued- Relative worth, utility, or importance
Pragmatism- The practical approach to problems and affairs.
So, basically, idealism is the big idea, or the morals that lead you to do what you do. Pragmatism is what works right then.
My value is morals.
The definition of morals is: of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior.
Contention 1: Morals and Idealism are inseparable.
Without morals our society would be in complete disarray. When you look at our world, there is very little that could function well without morals. The justice system is based on morals, what is right and wrong. Without morals our government would be completely untrustworthy and corrupt. We are seeing the effects of having a world and a government with questionable morals; imagine that multiplied, life without morals would hardly be worth living. No one would be able to trust anyone else. We get morals from the Bible. God laid out for us the law, or the 10 Commandments. The ultimate sense of right and wrong comes from God. You cannot change morals, they are the same for everyone, and they are absolute. The definition of idealism is “The practice of taking right and wrong and living under their influence.” So, idealism is taking morals and living under their influence. Morals are what keep our world in order. Idealism gives you things to fight for. In the Revolutionary war, the colonists knew that what the British were doing was wrong. This is why, in the Declaration of Independence, they spelled out the wrongs that had been done to them by Britain. Without Idealism they would not have known what was right or wrong in what was happening to them.
Contention 2: In a conflict, pragmatism without idealism is immoral.
This is basically saying that without idealism, pragmatism becomes immoral and will lead you to do wrong things. I would like to share a quote for you from Margaret Chase Smith, “Greatness is not manifested in unlimited pragmatism which places such a high premium in the ends justifying the means by any method.” Now you may be saying, “Pragmatism gets things done right? It does things that work!” Yes, it does. However, without idealism and morals, the pragmatic approach and what works, is hardly ever the best approach. An example of this is found in South America’s fight for independence. The Spanish soldiers and the South American soldiers were in a conflict. South America wanted to be free from the oppressive rule of the Spanish. The Spanish soldiers began to kill, not only the South American soldiers, but also the innocent women and children. When you are in a fight, frequently, your opponent can be underhanded and will stoop to levels that are immoral. Without morals and idealism, we would respond the way that Simon Bolivar did. Simon Bolivar was the leader of the South Americans. When he saw what was happening he declared the “War to the Death.” This War to the Death was a law that basically said, that South Americans could and should murder and commit any atrocities to all Spanish born people. All Spanish people. Which meant, women and children, even the elderly. All you had to do was be Spanish, and your life was in mortal danger. This leads me to my third and final contention.
Contention 3: In a conflict pragmatism without idealism is ineffective:
The pragmatic approach without idealism is not only immoral, but also it is ineffective. Continuing with the South American example, we can see the ineffectiveness of Bolivar’s decision. Many Spanish people died. But all this did was infuriate the Spanish even further leading them to fight harder and kill more South Americans. They also fight longer. The South Americans did, eventually, win the war. However, as Encyclopedia Britannica put it so well “By passing the Wart to the death, Bolivar prolonged the war and caused unneeded and excessive bloodshed.” The pragmatic approach, what worked, did not work because there were no morals and no ideals behind Bolivar’s decision. Another example would be in the Congress of Vienna. Clemens Von Metternich was the Austrian representative. The congress met after the fall of Napoleon to divide the land that he had taken. By double-dealing and lying, Metternich hoped to get more land than the others. Instead, he ended up with half of what he had been told to get, and lost some of what they had. He tried to be pragmatic, but without ideals, he failed.
Review:
Quickly I am going to review my taglines and examples.
Contention 1: Morals and Idealism are inseparable.
Contention 2: In a conflict, pragmatism without ideals is immoral.
Contention 3: In a conflict, pragmatism without idealism is ineffective.
My examples were the Revolutionary war, the War to the Death, and the Congress of Vienna.
Thank you so much for your time.
