James C's Briefs

These are basically my negative case, so they're only in brief-ish format.



1. Pragmatism is merely a means to an end
a. Idealism is equally a means. Whichever one we choose, the end is the ideal, not idealism
b. Idealism is necessary to reach an ideal, but so is pragmatism.


2. My opponent has said that pragmatism is inconsistent. This is incorrect; pragmatism is flexible.
a. Idealism is consistent, but it is unchangeably consistent.
b. Pragmatism has the ability to be flexible, and always make the beneficial choice.
c. Idealism will always follow its ideal, even if it is not advantageous to do so.

3. My opponent has said pragmatism is immoral, and merely expedient. This is true of pure pragmatism, but that is not what the resolution states.
a. True, unfiltered pragmatism focuses solely on expediency, however, the version of pragmatism I am suggested is tempered by idealism.
b. My version of pragmatism focuses on our ideals and practically achieves them. Seeing as my opponent and I believe that a good ideal should moral, (question 1-a-1) I believe that my version of pragmatism is just as moral as my opponent’s idealism.

4. My opponent has given the example of (insert opponent's example here) where pragmatism compromised an ideal.
a. the example is not an example of pragmatism compromising an ideal, it is the result of overemphasis on an ideal compromising an ideal
b. What I am proposing will not be in danger of overemphasizing an ideal, because my value encompasses all ideals.

I have more, but most of them are value-centric.

Hey it's Preston

Hey James I was wondering where you heard that there are two different types of Pragmatism. Umm... you might want to find a quote or example to prove that someone proffessional thinks the same way you do. To me it seems like this is something you made up. In my rebuttal I would definately question whether or not this is actually a fact that there is Pure Pragmatism and non-pure pragmatism, because it is not a well known fact.

Your first brief is pretty good because obviously any method of reaching an ideal is a means to an end.

Another thing to think about for the last brief is the fact that Pragmatism doesn't compromise and ideal it simply alows you to choose, under those certain circumstances which value is more important.

Swimmer Dude

James, I listened to you deliver your flex neg yesterday and to be honest I was trying to focus more on delivery than content (because that's what I said I was going to do....) If I make my next comments and they seem "unfair" or you did do this and I just missed it please forgive me. I'm simply giving you my experience as I've dealt with other flex neg issues with other debaters.


First of all it's essential that you make every effort to keep a flex neg case organized around the key issues of the debate. You'll need to forecast this prior to just jumping in and arguing. Remember an inexperienced judge or someone who has never heard a debate still craves organization so that he/ she can get their head around the issues better. Consider transitional phrases such as:


As the negative speaker I would like to start my case by arguing the key issues in this debate. As I address these issues, I will highlight the weaknesses in my opponents case and then champion the strengths of my own. I am going to start with my opponent's value. Let me ask you to hold his value of ________ against my value which is.......__________. (then go on to argue value pre-eminence)


The next key issue that I'd like to address in this case is my opponents definitions (if you choose to attack defs)

Now I'd like to attack the argumentation my opponent has presented, I'll go through his contentions and argue them with my key points and examples.

Finally I would like to summarize for you my major arguments:


I think the major thing I'm asking you to do here is take your judge and lead him/ her carefully through your case. You have to keep it organized so that you're not pulling and yanking him/ her around from one place to the next. Forecast what you plan to say, say it and than tell them what you just said.