Affirmative Argument: The easy way is not always the best way
I agree with that statement, however it does not apply to the resolution; Pragmatism is not taking the easy way. Just because something is practical does not mean that it is easy. And if someone were to choose the easy way over the practical way, it would not be pragmatism.
For example: an athlete on a sports team. If a player is using practical training methods and not slacking in their training, then that is being pragmatic and will lead to their goal of winning games.
Affirmative Argument: Without idealism pragmatism is useless
Logical Fallacy: False Dilemma
The affirmatives argument is based on a false dilemma logical fallacy. A false dilemma is a fallacy in which you are given and unrealistic choices between two or more things, when really you could have both. Two different things can coincide.
The affirmative is arguing that without idealism pragmatism is useless. They are assuming a false dilemma because they are not allowing for the fact that we can have both idealism and pragmatism. The resolution says nothing about we needs to value one and not the other. It simply says that idealism ought to be valued about pragmatism. They are trying to persuade you towards the affirmatives side by blowing the negative position out of proportion.
Affirmative Argument: Pragmatism is inconsistent
Cross Ex questions:
Do you believe that we live in an ever-changing world?
So everyday things are changing?
Ect….
Pragmatism allows for us to change our approach depending on our fast pace world. The resolution says when in conflict; it never specifies whose conflict. It is a very broad statement that if we affirm will not allow for any wiggle room. If we affirm this resolution we must value idealism above pragmatism in every situation. But if we negate the resolution we can look at our ever-changing world and decide what would be best at the time.
Affirmative Argument: Pragmatism is a means to an end
Cross-Ex:
Do you think it is very likely for me to win a debate if I showed up in here today to without preparing at all?
So if my goal was to win a debate I wouldn’t be able to do that unless I took initiative to do so correct?
Yes, pragmatism is a means to an end, which means pragmatism are the steps we take in order to read our end result. That does not mean that we should value them any less. In cross examination my opponent agreed that I would not be able to reach my goal of winning a debate unless I took the practical steps needed to do so. So without pragmatism we would not be taking the practical steps in order to achieve our goal. Thus we should not value idealism above pragmatism.
Affirmative Argument: If you're not pursuing an ideal there's no point to life
The negative has never said you are not supposed to pursue an ideal. The affirmative is trying to exaggerate the negative position in an attempt to persuade you towards their views. The affirmative’s argument does not relate to the resolution, because no where in my case have I said that we should stop pursuing all ideals. I’m simply saying that we should not value idealism above pragmatism. If we negate this resolution we can have both idealism and pragmatism valued equally.
