Speech and Debate


Speak Out NC
 
HomePortalFAQRegisterMemberlistLog in

Share | 
 

 James A. VS Nick

Go down 
AuthorMessage
flyboymonkey
Admin
avatar

Number of posts : 42
Location : nowhere
Humor : much and many
Registration date : 2007-11-28

PostSubject: James A. VS Nick   Tue Jan 20, 2009 1:36 pm

“Sometimes people call me an idealist. Well, that is the way I know I am an American. America is the only idealistic nation in the world.” This quote comes from former president Woodrow T. Wilson.

Good afternoon my name is James Apple and I will be the affirmative speaker for the following debate round. I would like to thank the judge, timer and the negative
speaker for being here today. My value for this round will be wisdom and for the purpose of upholding my value I stand resolved. that pragmatism
will cause horrible long term results. In this case I will demonstrate that my value of wisdom dictates that we affirm the resolution.

In order to provide clarity and mutual understanding in today’s debate round, I will define some of the key terms that are found within the resolution and that I will be using extensively throughout the following round.
First of all, Idealism is defined by Webster’s dictionary as the practice of forming ideals and living under their influence. Above is defined by Webster’s dictionary as a higher rank or number. Pragmatism is defined by Webster’s dictionary we a practical approach to problems and conflict is defined by Webster’s as a Contention, strife or contest.

Value and Criterion:
My value for this round, Wisdom, is the highest value in the hierarchy of values because wisdom is necessary to make wise long term decisions.

BURDENS:
In today’s debate round, I, the affirmative speaker, have the privilege of affirming the resolution, which states in times of conflict idealism should be valued above pragmatism. I must affirm the resolution through my three contentions for the purpose of achieving my value of wisdom. If I fulfill my burdens, I should be granted the win.

THESIS STATEMENT:
My thesis statement is that pragmatisms long term result can be horrible

CONTENTION 1:
My first contention is that action without thought of long term consequences will make us do things that will end in only pain and suffering for ourselves and our country. An example of which is the Ford Pinto. Released September 11th, 1970 the pinto was nicknamed by ford “the carefree car” had a fatal flaw The gas tank was in the back of the car behind the axel which means that whenever this car had a rear end collision the car would explode . Ford knew about this flaw but decided that it would be easier to let the car go into production… after all there aren’t that many rear end collisions.. Right? So to Ford with their pragmatic view thought that the consequence seemed to far away or miniscule to do anything but in the end many peoples lives were lost and ford was sued for over $125 million dollars and almost drove this huge company out of business.

CONTENTION 2:
If we accept policies of pragmatism we will act the way that seems best at that particular moment. An example of which is the current economic crisis. We are taking pragmatic actions such as investing public funds in private institutions with unknown consequences that we would never have considered doing in years gone by. It seems as though as a nation we seem willing to give up our liberties and principals we were founded on at every turn you’re in a crisis. Or another example is the pragmatic decision by our government to give mortgages to people that would be unable to repay them was good in the short term but has now come back to bite us badly.

REITERATION
I, the affirmative speaker, have the privilege of negating the resolution and being in favor of the idealistic way. Throughout my contentions, I have argued 2 main points.

CLOSING QUOTE:
I would like to close with a quote from Olive Wendell Holmes, who once proclaimed, “Man is born a predestined idealist, for he is born to act. To act is to affirm the worth of an end, and to persist in affirming the worth of an end is to make an ideal.”

VOTING ISSUES:
Thank you. I have fulfilled my burden and affirmed the resolution. I now respectfully urge the judge to affirm the resolution. Thank you and I now stand ready for cross-examination and further points of clarification.

_________________



Last edited by flyboymonkey on Mon Feb 09, 2009 3:12 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://speech.forumotion.net
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: James A. VS Nick   Mon Jan 26, 2009 12:11 pm

Wouldn't ford have thought of the consequences or his actions, thus being idealist?
Back to top Go down
flyboymonkey
Admin
avatar

Number of posts : 42
Location : nowhere
Humor : much and many
Registration date : 2007-11-28

PostSubject: Re: James A. VS Nick   Mon Feb 02, 2009 1:01 pm

No, because he figured it would be easier and less expensive in the short term making him a pragmatist.

And post all your CX at once to make it flow faster

_________________

Back to top Go down
View user profile http://speech.forumotion.net
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: James A. VS Nick   Thu Feb 05, 2009 4:32 pm

QUOTE:
Thomas A. Edison once said “Restlessness and discontent are the first necessities of progress.”

PREVIEW:

Good afternoon. My name is Nicolas Cuany and I will be the negative speaker for the following debate round. I would like to thank the judge, timer, and affirmative speaker for being here today. My value for this round will be progress, and for the purpose of upholding my value I must negate the resolution which states “When in conflict, idealism ought to be valued above pragmatism” but rather state that idealism and Pragmatism should be valued equally. In this case I will demonstrate that my value of progress dictates that we negate the resolution.

DEFINITIONS:

In order to provide clarity and mutual understanding in today’s debate round, I will define some of the key terms that are found within the resolution and that I will be using extensively throughout the following round. First of all,
Pragmatism is defined as “when you deal with a problem in a realistic way rather than obeying fixed theories, ideas or rules” by Cambridge International Dictionary of English.
Idealism is defined as “a theory that only mental states or entities are knowable” by Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, 11th Edition.
Conflict is defined as “A fighting; combat” by Webster's 1828 Dictionary

VALUE AND CRITERION:

My value for this round, progress, is defined by Infoplease Dictionary as “a movement toward a goal or to a further or higher stage”. Progress is the highest value in the hierarchy of values because without progress, nothing would be accomplished.

BURDENS:

In today’s debate round, I, the negative speaker, have the privilege of negating the resolution, which states,“When in conflict, idealism ought to be valued above pragmatism.”. I must negate the resolution through my three contentions for the purpose of achieving my value of progress. If I fulfill my burdens, I should be granted the win.

THESIS STATEMENT: My thesis statement is: Pragmatism and Idealism ought to be valued equally

CONTENTION #1: Idealism with out Pragmatism is bad: I would like to talk to you abut three men. The first man, an idealist, wants to go climbing. He thinks of getting to the top of the mountain and nothing else. He gets his gear ready and once he has gotten over half way up the mountain he realizes he doesn’t have enough rope to get to the top. This man has kept his ideal higher than taking a pragmatic view of things as well and wasn't fully prepared. If we value idealism more we wont realize some of the possible dangers before us.

CONTENTION #2 Pragmatism without Idealism is bad: Now, the second man, a Pragmatist, gets his gear ready and while climbing gets stuck on the rock, so he moves over to another side of the rock. He again gets stuck and keeps moving sideways along the rock, but never getting to the top. He has put Pragmatism above Idealism and cant get anything completed. But if we value Pragmatism and Idealism together, than we will be able to progress throughout life.

CONTENTION #3 Pragmatism and Idealism is better when used together: The third man has his gear and rope. He makes sure that he has extra rope if he gets stuck. When he faces a problem on the rock he moves and continues to climb until he finally gets to the top. This man has considered any possible problems that he might encounter and prepared for them, yet has still kept his goal on getting to the top.

REITERATION:

I, the negative speaker, have the privilege of negating the resolution. Throughout my contentions, I have argued three main points: 1) Idealism with out Pragmatism is bad 2) Pragmatism without Idealism is bad 3) Pragmatism and Idealism is better when used together

CLOSING QUOTE:

I would like to close with a quote from Franklin D. Roosevelt, who once proclaimed, “There are many ways of going forward, but only one way of standing still.”
Back to top Go down
flyboymonkey
Admin
avatar

Number of posts : 42
Location : nowhere
Humor : much and many
Registration date : 2007-11-28

PostSubject: Re: James A. VS Nick   Fri Feb 06, 2009 2:17 pm

Yes or no ONLY please

1.Through my definition of Idealism wouldn't the man in your first contention prepared for such a trek?

2.Through your 2nd contention would you agree that pragmatism without idealism gets you nowhere?

3.Would you agree that through my definition the idealist man would have prepared his gear and had the courage to get to the top?

4.do you believe that action without thought of long term consequences will make us do things that will end in only pain and suffering for ourselves and our country?

5.do you believe that if we accept policies of pragmatism alone we will do things that only seem best at that moment?

6.Is Idealism necessary for wisdom?

7.Do you believe that all progress is good progress?

8.Do you think that progress is wise?

9.Do you believe that we need to make wise choices and decisions ?

10.Do you agree that according to your 1st and 2nd contention the idealist got farther than the pragmatist?

11. And can you please tell me how your first quote ties into your case?

Thanks, Smile

_________________

Back to top Go down
View user profile http://speech.forumotion.net
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: James A. VS Nick   Mon Feb 09, 2009 2:13 pm

1)No

2)No it gets you somewhere but not where you would want to be

3)Yes but he didn't think to prepare for any obstacles

4)Yes

5)Yes that is why we need to value pragmatism and idealism equally

6)Yes

7)No

8)It can be

9)Yes

10)No they both never made it to the top

11)It has progress in it.

your right I probably need to change it
Back to top Go down
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: James A. VS Nick   

Back to top Go down
 
James A. VS Nick
Back to top 
Page 1 of 1
 Similar topics
-
» James Webb Space Telescope Progress
» What's wrong with Nick Cannon (Mariah Carey's husband)?
» St. James Infirmary
» has anyone used Dr James CHau?
» Our grandfather - William James Long

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