Imagine a world without morality. What would it be like? It would be in complete chaos of course! People would have no moral convictions and would just do whatever they wanted to do without a though of if it was good for others. Is that a world that you would like to live in? Morality is what really matters. As Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter to Peter Carr, ***read slowly***
“Give up money, give up fame, give up science, give the earth itself and all it contains rather than do an immoral act. And never suppose that in any possible situation, or under any circumstances, it is best for you to do a dishonorable thing, however slightly so it may appear to you ... From the practice of the purest virtue, you may be assured you will derive the most sublime comforts in every moment of life, and in the moment of death.”
As the negative speaker, it is my duty to show how negating the resolution—and valuing idealism and pragmatism equally—allows us to better pursue Morality. Hello, my I’m Carl Colglazier and this is my thesis—or main point—that I will be supporting it for the rest of this debate.
First off, I will define my value. Merriam Webster defines my value—morality, the highest value—as, “a doctrine or system of moral conduct”
It also defines moral as, “of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior”
Now I shall move on to my contentions or points.
Contention 1-We should value idealism and pragmatism equally.
To support this, I will use the analogy of gardening. When you are gardening, you are being an idealist by pursuing your ideal of blooming flowers and ripe vegetables. But you are also valuing pragmatism by planting, watering, fertilizing, and weeding, all practical ways to grow a healthy plant. You are valuing idealism and pragmatism equally. Unless you wanted the ideal of blooming flowers and ripe vegetables you would not put the effort into planting, watering, fertilizing, and weeding. But without planting, watering, fertilizing, and weeding, you would not be able to achieve your goal. Gardening is a perfect example of how we should value idealism and pragmatism equally. Another example would be the United Kingdom during WWII. While Neville Chamberlain was the Prime Minister, he had the value of peace. While Germany was taking over Czechoslovakia and Austria, he allowed them to continue taking over Europe, because he didn’t take any practical action against them. But Winston Churchill had a different approach. Even when it looked as if Germany would be the victor, and they were the only major ally left, they never gave up, as said by Winston Churchill “Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival.” Not only did the U.K. value Idealism, but they also valued pragmatism by fighting Germany. Yet another example of how we should value idealism and pragmatism equally.
Contention 2-The resolution is an always statement.
If I told you to jump out of this window, would you jump? I hope not. But what if I told you to jump out of this window while the hallway is on fire, and jumping was the only way to escape? Then it would be a good idea. But in mast cases, it is not a good idea. Well, the resolution works the same way. Is it always good to jump out of this window? NO! Is it always good, when in conflict, to value idealism above pragmatism? NO, in most cases it will not work.
Contention 3-Negating the resolution allows us to pursue Morality.
As I stated earlier, valuing idealism and pragmatism allows us to achieve goal. I also stated earlier that there is no greater goal to achieve that morality. Therefore valuing idealism and pragmatism allows us to achieve morality.
Now I would like to address the affirmative case…
