Speech and Debate


Speak Out NC
 
HomePortalFAQRegisterMemberlistLog in

Share | 
 

 Preston VS Morgan

Go down 
AuthorMessage
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Preston VS Morgan   Sun Jan 25, 2009 6:11 pm

Hey Morgan what side are you taking? If you aren't back to me soon I'll just go ahead and start Smile

Swimmer Dude
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Reply   Tue Jan 27, 2009 8:16 pm

Hi Preston, I'd rather take the affirmative side but I'll leave the choice up to you, just choose which one you would like to do.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Preston VS Morgan   Tue Jan 27, 2009 8:42 pm

Go ahead and post the affirmitave then let's just get rollin Very Happy

Swimmer Dude
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: A reply   Mon Feb 02, 2009 8:40 pm

Les brown Once said "shoot for the moon, if you miss you'll land in the stars" this quote illustrates why idealism ought to be valued above Pragmatism, because it tries to achieve goals as effectively as possible.

Good afternoon I am Morgan Sipe and I will be the affirmative speaker for this debate round.My value for this round will be progress and for the purpose of upholding my value I stand, resolved that when in conflict idealism ought to be valued above Pragmatism. In this case I will demonstrate how my value of progress dictates that we affirm the resolution.

In order to provide mutual clarity and understanding in this debate round I will define some of the key terms that I will use through out the round. .(Webster’s) Idealism is defined as behavior or thought based on a conception of things as one thinks they should be. Ideals are a conception of things in their most excellent form.Pragmatism is defined (Encarta World dictionary) as a straightforward practical way of thinking about things or dealing with problems, concerned with results rather than with theories and principles.

My value for this round: Progress is defined as an improvement or moving forward as to an objective or goal. Progress must be valued in order for values and goals to be achieved. Idealism allows progress to achieve goals more effectively.

First Contention: Idealism starts a goal so why shouldn't the ideals guide the progress to a goal?

As idealism creates a goal it should guide it through the process of achieving that goal because Idealism will stay true to the Ideal and therefore end up with a more complete goal.Let me illustrate this point by giving you an analogy. A captain of a ship uses a compass to help him arrive at his chosen destination.If he does not follow the compass 100% of the time,he will end up hundreds of miles off target. Idealism is like a compass that allows us to reach our destination more effectively. By following ideals we end up closer to our goals.On the other hand if Pragmatism is followed then our goals will not truly reflect the goal as it is not following the ideals that created the goal. Since Idealism follows goals more faithfully than Pragmatism it more completely fulfills the end goal. This brings me to my second contention.

Second Contention: My second contention is Idealism leading Pragmatism will better complete the goal

I need to make the point here that I am not saying that Pragmatism is useless.On the contrary I am saying that Idealism should guide the progress to the goal and the best way to do that is by guiding Pragmatism. Idealism controlling Pragmatism will complete the goal completely. Its like a painter who uses a brush, the brush actually does the work,but his mind,which knows what the painting is supposed look like makes sure that the brush does what it is supposed to do.However If pragmatism is left in controll of guiding the progress it is like the painter envisions what he wants the painting to look like. yet instead of guiding it carefully into what he wants, he throws the brush at the canvas and hopes it will be what he wants it to be. When he looks though it will be a giant mess. When ideals are the ones guiding Progress to the goal they will fuffil the goal more in the image of what it is imagined to be.

Third Contention: My third contention is Progress with Idealism is a more complete reflection of the goal.

Communism in Russia is an excellent event to explain my point.When the Soviet Union was formed it was based on A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single,authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people. Now according to Communism everyone is equal;why therefore did the leaders of the Soviets live in wealth and prosperity while the people suffered?The reason is that Leaders are required and it is an inherent fact that leaders will generally have more than the common folk,but having leaders did not reflect the ideals of Communism because it was a practical "pragmatic" organization that was necessary for The Soviet Union to survive but because of this they never truly reached their goal of Equality because the pragmatic way does not reflect the end goal as completely as Idealism will. If Idealism had been followed everyone be equal and that would have reflected their end goal of "equality".
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Preston VS Morgan   Tue Feb 03, 2009 8:20 pm

Here are my cross-ex. Just answer each question in the order they are written here. Oh and please give a yes or no answer to each, because otherwise I will continue post those you didn't directly answer.

Negative Cross-ex confused

Clarification 1. Where does your definition of Progress come from?

1. Do you agree that we need to change our views under certain circumstances?

Is killing wrong?

Do you believe our country is in danger of terrorist attacks? (Was 9/11 a terrorist attack?)

If terrorists attack us, (again) do you think we should defend ourselves?

2. Would you agree that in order to attain the best quality of life you must first attain your personal most important values.

Would you agree then, that your value of progress would be achieved if the highest quality of life was achieved?

3. Should we always value Idealism above Pragmatism?

Would you agree that Idealism limits our pursuit of happiness?

If we no longer have happiness do we have the highest quality of life?

4. Is the goal of Idealism to attain good results?

5. In your second contention were you saying that Pragmatism is part of Idealism or that the two ought to work hand in hand?
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Preston VS Morgan   Thu Feb 05, 2009 8:09 pm

Clarification 1: Websters ninth New Collegiate Dictionary

1:yes
A):Any killing that is not out of self-defense or is not "justified" is wrong
B)yes
C)yes

2:yes
A)No

3:yes
A)sometimes
B)That depends on the situation

4:The goal of Idealism is to achieve the Ideal

5:I was saying that in the process of achieving a goal pragmatism should be led by idealism
_______________________________________________________________________________________
hatecomps hatecomps hatecomps hatecomps hatecomps mad hatecomps hatecomps hatecomps mad
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Preston VS Morgan   Fri Feb 13, 2009 12:29 pm

Here it is Morgan, my Negative with my rebuttal on the end. (sorry it took so long to post)

Hello my name is Preston Rodeniser and it is my pleasure to be taking the negative side in today’s debate. My value for today’s debate round is quality of life.

I stand firmly resolved that we ought to negate the resolution which states: When in conflict, Idealism ought to be valued above Pragmatism. I believe we should negate the resolution because Pragmatism allows us to have a better quality of life.
To begin, I would like to define my value quality of life, as defined in Encarta World English Dictionary.
Quality is defined as: the general standard or grade of something and the definition of life is: The entire period during which somebody is. . . alive
In other words having the best quality of life would mean, having the highest standard of living.

The American journalist Henry Mencken once said this;
“Idealist: one who on noticing that a rose smells better than cabbage concludes that it will also make a better soup.” (End of quote)

If you have a set of ideals through which all your decisions are made, then you will not be able to create the best quality of life that is possible for you. Whereas, through pragmatism we can attain a higher quality of life, because, depending on the circumstances, different choices can be made in order to help others and ourselves achieve that higher quality of life.

My first contention states that, Idealism doesn’t allow a person to adjust their actions to protect their quality of life. If you believe that under all circumstances killing is wrong, then how can you justify war or self defense? Without wars or a right to self defense, many innocent people’s lives would be snuffed out without due cause.
As you probably know, currently we are fighting a war against terrorists who have in the past and still will cause the deaths of many people. The warfare that we are experiencing today is necessary in order to save lives and our country. As a pragmatist, although you may still think that killing is wrong, you are able to say “yes to war” because in that situation it is the right thing to do. Without fighting wars, such as the war on terror, many people could lose the quality of life that they currently have.

My second and final contention states that: Inflexible idealism doesn’t always end with positive results. For example if you hold the idealistic view that families should always stay together, you would not be able to intervene and assist children who are being abused or mistreated. People who hold this idealistic belief lose the power to give these children a life in which their new parents will love, take care, and help them to have better lives in the future.

Adolph Hitler and the Russian dictator, Joseph Stalin, are remembered as two of the most evil men in all history. Hitler and Stalin were both beaten and abused by their father’s during their childhoods. Their father’s never cared or paid any attention to them and because of this, both Hitler and Stalin became Dictator’s who abused their power and other human beings. Albert Marrin stated in his book Hitler; “People aren’t born good or evil. They are born, period. They become good or evil according to how the world and their life experiences shape them.”

If someone would have had the power to take Stalin and Hitler out of their homes then hundreds of thousands of the deaths they caused would not have happened.
As an idealist, who believes a family should stay together, you are unable to help those children who are being abused. Whereas a pragmatist is able to save those abused children from their bad homes. The pragmatist, by helping these children escape their homes, not only helps the children to attain a better quality of life but the people who they will eventually come in contact with.

For the sake of clarity I am now going to restate my contentions which are.

In my first contention I stated that, because pragmatism is adjustable according to the situation. My second contention I used Hitler and Stalin as an example to show that, inflexible Idealism doesn’t always end in positive results.

I would now like to go over my oponnents case briefly,

In his first contention he used the example of a ship as an anlogy. He said without using the compass at all times the captain of the ship would lose his way and end up hundreds of miles off course. But lets imagine that the captain realizes that a storm is aproaching, what should he do? Sail right into the monsoon, or should he alter his course in order to save his crew, cargo, and ship from being destroyed. He should take the flexible, Pragmatic approach and change his coarse in order to arrive safely on land. Pragmatism is not incosistent, as my opponnent stated, it is simply flexible. As I showed through the ship analogy it is good to be flexible. If the captain had not changed his course he would have lost all that was valuable to him. But by taking the pragmatic approach of changing his course the captain was able to keep his quality of life.

Thank you for your time. I know stand ready for cross examination. sunny
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Afiirmative CX   Tue Mar 17, 2009 6:17 pm

I am extremely sorry about not doing this but here it is.

Cross Ex against Negative

Is (your value) an ideal?

Would you agree that progress is important/essential/needed for your value to fuffill itself?

Would you agree that in different situations, your practical actions might change? Would You say that,that is good/reasonable?

Would you agree that we ought to base our actions on our ideals?

Would you agree that actions are based on our ideas?(if the actions are so important then the base must be valued above)

Would you agree that most people are not able to act without a goal in mind?
Back to top Go down
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Preston VS Morgan   

Back to top Go down
 
Preston VS Morgan
Back to top 
Page 1 of 1
 Similar topics
-
» Stevie Morgan
» Trunews w/Guests Morgan Bernhart and Anthony Summers
» Is Daishin Morgan retiring?
» How to Grow A Lotus Blossom?
» trying to Find

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