Speech and Debate

Speak Out NC
HomePortalFAQRegisterMemberlistLog in


 James C's Aff Briefs

Go down 
James C.

James C.

Number of posts : 39
Age : 26
Registration date : 2008-09-18

James C's Aff Briefs Empty
PostSubject: James C's Aff Briefs   James C's Aff Briefs EmptyWed Nov 05, 2008 7:57 pm

Sorry if the organization doesn't make much sense.

1. Negating allows us to value both idealism and pragmatism

a. Conflict between the two is inherent in the resolution, we cannot resolve conflict by valuing the two equally, or even close to equally.
b. In WWII could we have resolved the conflict by valuing Nazism and Jewish live equally? Even close to equally?

2. This example of (insert your example here) is merely an example of valuing one ideal over another, not an example of pragmatism.

a. Could my opponent present an example of any decision which is not the result of valuing one ideal over the other? Every decision we make is the result of valuing one ideal over the other.
b. If all decisions are the result of idealism, and pragmatism is a term for only some of these decisions, shouldn’t idealism be valued more highly? After all, we value the whole over the part.

3. Idealism forces us into an unbreakable mold.

a. My mold is merely morality, is my opponent saying that always making the moral decision is a bad thing?

4. Pragmatism and idealism are the same thing, and therefore we cannot affirm.

a. If they are the same thing, it is only because pragmatism is a subset of idealism.
b. The whole is more valuable than the part.
c. It is not unreasonable to assume that the resolution is questioning the value of the part over the whole, it happens all the time. Many politicians value the good of the poor over the good of the whole nation. The mortgage crisis for example.

5. We cannot achieve our ideals without pragmatism

a. If we affirm, we will achieve our ideals, be it in a pragmatic way or not.
b. If we value idealism more, we might use pragmatism some, not more highly than idealism, mind you, but use it none the less.
c. We do not need to negate in order to use pragmatism when necessary.

6. Pragmatism and idealism never conflict

a. it is inherent in the resolution

7. We should sometimes value pragmatism more highly than idealism

a. If we always value idealism more highly, than we will always have pragmatism.
b. Why would we do sometimes, when we can do always?
Back to top Go down
View user profile
James C's Aff Briefs
Back to top 
Page 1 of 1
 Similar topics
» Our grandfather - William James Long
» Dr James Ritchie - Sydney
» King James VI and George Villiers, Duke of Buckingham
» Scarboro' Bks: RAOC Characters 1962

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Speech and Debate :: year 2007-early2008 :: Archives 2008/2009-
Jump to: