Speech and Debate
Speech and Debate
Speech and Debate
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.


Speak Out NC
 
HomePortalLatest imagesRegisterLog in

 

 Adam's affirmative constructive

Go down 
3 posters
AuthorMessage
Adam Sprecher




Number of posts : 33
Registration date : 2008-09-18

Adam's affirmative constructive Empty
PostSubject: Adam's affirmative constructive   Adam's affirmative constructive EmptyMon Sep 29, 2008 10:54 am

Here's my AC. It's definitely over 6 minutes' worth, and I'm still trying to figure out where to cut it down so it's not so long...

Hello, my name is Adam Sprecher. I would like to thank the judges, timer, and my opponent for being here today. As the affirmative speaker, my goal in this debate round is to demonstrate why we should affirm this year’s resolution, which reads, “Resolved: When in conflict, idealism aught to be valued above pragmatism.” This resolution should be affirmed because of my value, which is responsibility. The thesis statement for my case is the following: We have the responsibility to make decisions that are beneficial in the long term, as idealism would suggest, rather than just the short term, as pragmatism would suggest. Now, these are my three contentions for the upcoming debate round: first of all, the convenient way is not always the right way. Second contention: responsibility to an ideal is vital to any person, group, or society. Lastly, without an ideal, pragmatism is useless.
Now, before I expand on these contentions, I will submit some definitions of key terms that will be vital to this debate round.

First of all, conflict is defined by Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary as “competitive or opposing action of incompatibles: antagonistic state or action (as of divergent ideas, interests, or persons)”
Secondly, “idealism” is defined by Webster’s New World Dictionary, 2nd College Edition as “behavior or thought based on a conception of things as they should be or as one would wish them to be; idealization”
Also, “value” is defined by Webster’s 1828 Dictionary as “to consider with respect to importance”
Encarta World English Dictionary, North American Edition defines “pragmatism” as “a way of thinking about results: a straightforward practical way of thinking about things or dealing with problems, concerned with results rather than with theories and principles.”
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th Ed. defines responsibility as “the state, quality, or fact of being responsible”
Lastly, “responsible” is defined by Cambridge Dictionary of American English as “having the duty of taking care of something”

Now that all the terms have been defined, we can move on to my first contention….
C1: The convenient way is not always the right way.
This is a simple fact of life that is manifested in many different situations. We can look back to the story of Marion Jones, the Olympic sprinter, as a perfect example of this truth. Marion Jones was a standout high school and college track and field star. She was one of the best in the nation. A few years later, when she graduated to the world stage, she thought she needed a little extra something to give her an edge against the world’s greatest athletes. So she started taking steroids, namely the notorious substance known simply as “the clear.” For years, this convenient decision seemed to have paid high dividends. In the summer Olympics in Sydney she won three gold medals and two bronze. She signed countless big money contracts and was on track to being one of the most famous American athletes in the world. Then her life came crashing down when her steroids supplier, Victor Conte, was arrested for his role in distributing the drugs. He implicated her in one of his many court hearings, and eventually, she tearfully admitted her mistakes to the public. She has been stripped of her medals and has recently been released, broke, from a federal prison in Texas. Several years ago, steroids seemed like a convenient, safe, and even smart decision for her to make. No one needed to know, and it would catapult her to the pinnacle of success. It even succeeded for a short time. In the end, though, the long term results of her decision were obviously not what she wanted. A pragmatist may choose a seemingly necessary option which is extremely beneficial in the short term, but idealists hold true to their responsibility to what is really important, and this is takes care of them in the long term.

C2: Responsibility to an ideal is vital to any person, group, or society.
Without being responsible to uphold or defend an ideal, there is no point or order in life. People just seek short term pleasure, not long term good. What would life be without ideals such as freedom, fair play, love, and justice being paramount when in conflict? There is no point, no goal, even to the conflicts themselves. When the responsibility to uphold ideals is gone, nothing is left but chaos.

C3: Without an ideal, pragmatism is useless.
Pragmatism can be useful. We must recognize that. But it can only be useful when it is harnessed by idealism. Short term is important; it just cannot be elevated over the long term. Pragmatism can be used effectively, but only when in pursuit of an ideal. Remember, the definition of idealism is as follows, “behavior or thought based on a conception of things as they should be or as one would wish them to be; idealization.” This is the pursuit of an ideal. Pragmatism is effective when used under the broader scope of idealism. Obviously, it is not worth going into conflict, as the resolution suggests, unless one is striving for a goal. And whatever a goal is, whether it be safety, prosperity, freedom, fairness, or anything else, it can always be classified as an ideal. So when we are in conflict and take away the pursuit of an ideal, what are we left with? Nothing.

In summation, I would like to briefly recap the main points I have made. First of all, my value is responsibility, and I believe we should affirm the resolution because of my thesis statement, which reads, “We have the responsibility to make decisions that are beneficial in the long term, as idealism would suggest, rather than just the short term, as pragmatism would suggest.” In my first contention, I stated that the convenient way in a given conflict is not necessarily the best way. In my second contention, my point was that responsibility to an ideal is key to any person, or group of persons. My last contention argues that without idealism, pragmatism is useless.

As the affirmative speaker, I have fulfilled my burden and upheld the resolution. I respectfully urge the judges to affirm the resolution. Thank you and I stand ready for cross-examination and further points of clarification.
Back to top Go down
mrs. gray
Admin
mrs. gray


Number of posts : 174
Age : 60
Location : Cary NC
Humor : LOVES TO LAUGH!
Registration date : 2007-11-29

Adam's affirmative constructive Empty
PostSubject: A few suggestions for shortening for time   Adam's affirmative constructive EmptyMon Sep 29, 2008 12:25 pm

Adam, I love your arguments thus far and can offer just a few suggestions for making this more timely.

1. I love your definitions, however one simple way to shorten is by choosing all your definitions from the same source. Do you have one or two definitions that could be pulled from the same source as your key definitions. I can see that you put a lot of work into choosing your definitions and this is commendable so only take this advice if you can find a comparable definition from a similar source or if your definition isn't key to your future arguments.

2. Shorten your elaboration on Marion Jones. Briefly summarize and make your point here. I think you are safe to assume that most people would know the general gist of her story. I love how you worded this but in this case... words are your nemesis when you are trying to shorten to 6 minutes.

3. I love your thesis but perhaps you could make it more direct. “We have the responsibility to make decisions that are beneficial for the long term, rather than just the short term.” respecting this thesis, I will use the following arguments to show why we must affirm the resolution.

4. I hate to say this considering the fact that you are trying to cut time, but C2 needs some additional support. Maybe an analogy or something concrete.

Just curious? How long did it take you to read through this case?
Back to top Go down
Adam Sprecher




Number of posts : 33
Registration date : 2008-09-18

Adam's affirmative constructive Empty
PostSubject: Re: Adam's affirmative constructive   Adam's affirmative constructive EmptyMon Sep 29, 2008 7:36 pm

Thanks for the advice! I'll definitely incorporate that into my second draft. It took a little over 7 minutes for me to read through the whole thing.
Back to top Go down
Carl

Carl


Number of posts : 49
Age : 27
Location : Planet Earth
Registration date : 2007-12-12

Adam's affirmative constructive Empty
PostSubject: Re: Adam's affirmative constructive   Adam's affirmative constructive EmptyTue Oct 28, 2008 12:34 pm

Was Marion Jones’ immoral to take steroids?
Did she undervalue the consequences of her means?
Should she have kept her means moral?
So if she paid attention to the immorality of her means, she would have succeeded?
So she valued the ideal of winning above moral pragmatism?

Are ideals always good ideals?
Do we sometimes feel responsibility to immoral ideals?
So we need morality to keep our responsibility to be toward good ideals?
Therefore, is morality essential to keep responsibility working?

Pragmatism is not short-term
My opponent stated earlier that pragmatism is short-term; however, this it is not true. Pragmatism is the practical was to achieve goals. As my opponent *If needed* Merriam-Webster defines it as “a practical approach to problems and affairs.” * Practical is defined by Compact Oxford English Dictionary as likely to be effective in real circumstances; feasible. As we just heard, the definition of pragmatism says nothing about working on the short term. Pragmatism is the practical—likely to work—way of achieving things, not something working toward the short-term.

Idealism and pragmatism need each other
Though pragmatism without idealism is useless, idealism without pragmatism is useless. We must use practical ways to achieve our ideals. Without pragmatism, we can not achieve our ideals. Just try building a house without any tools. You need tools, pragmatism, to get the house, the ideal. Without tools, you can not get the house, and without pragmatism, you can not get ideals. We must use practical, working ways to achieve our goals.

Values Morality vs. Responsibility
My value, morality is higher than the affirmative value, responsibility, because, as my opponent agreed with in cross-ex; morality makes responsibility work toward good values, and Morality is essential to making responsibility useful.

Here is a little argument. Basketball It is for my negative. The marion Jones I do not have a brief for, because it is in my case.
Back to top Go down
Adam Sprecher




Number of posts : 33
Registration date : 2008-09-18

Adam's affirmative constructive Empty
PostSubject: Re: Adam's affirmative constructive   Adam's affirmative constructive EmptyTue Oct 28, 2008 2:29 pm

In your cross-x you ask "if Marion Jones had paid attention to the immorality of her means, would she have succeeded?" It looks like that line of questioning is to show how if she had valued the means more, she would have succeeded/not cheated. Am i right?

If that's the case, here's my response: if jones HAD paid attention to the immorality of her means and acted morally, she would have been acting in an idealistic manner. She would be valuing morality. This is idealism. This is the definition of idealism that I used: "behavior or thought based on things as they should be, etc." Well, isn't moral behavior the way things should be? Sounds like idealism to me. Therefore, if she had been more idealistic, she wouldn't have had half the problems she ended up with.

OK, this next one is pretty long. I've heard the "pragmatism isn't short-term" argument more than once, though, from a few different people, so I figured I'd do my best to answer it fully right here, cuz it seems like that's gonna be a main argument against my case.

Your next argument says that pragmatism is not short term because my definition of pragmatism is "a practical approach to problems and affairs." Well, what does the word practical mean? Encarta Dictionary defines it as "suitable for everyday use." That sounds pretty short term to me. Of course, you define practical differently, so if we were really debating, we'd probably be arguing that definition! However, even with your definition, I would say pragmatism is still short-term. Why? Because if a person behaves in a way that is "likely to be effective in real circumstances," that person would be making a decision based on what works, right? Now, are we talking about what works in the short term or long term? You can't see into the future; you don't know what will give you the best results in the long term. You can only see what works in the short term. In the M. Jones situation, you say she wasn't being practical, because what she did didn't work. Well, put yourself in her shoes for a moment. You're entire life is sprinting, and you've come to the realization that you simply aren't fast enough to completely dominate your sport, even though that is your lifelong goal. Remember, Jones was not holding morality as an ideal at this point, so being immoral was not a constraint for her at the time. In her mind, what worked would be to use steroids. At the time she was running, officials in track and field were not really testing for doping as strictly as they should have been. Also the drug she was using was supposedly very hard to detect, so she had no reason to believe she'd be caught. She was acting on the belief that she was doing what would work at the time. She was being practical. She was being pragmatic.

See why I'm saying pragmatism is short-term? You can't see into the future to see what works in the long term. You can only make those kinds of decisions based on the short-term, the here-and-now.
Back to top Go down
Carl

Carl


Number of posts : 49
Age : 27
Location : Planet Earth
Registration date : 2007-12-12

Adam's affirmative constructive Empty
PostSubject: Re: Adam's affirmative constructive   Adam's affirmative constructive EmptyTue Oct 28, 2008 6:37 pm

Here is the contention in my case...

Contention One- If we undervalue the means, we may lose our goal. If we do not realize the consequences of our actions, we will often not reach our goal. Just like if you drive somewhere without good, realistic directions to your destination, failing to make practical decisions, will not get you where you want to go. Allow me to bring up the historical example of American track star Marion Jones. In the 2000 Summer Olympics, she wan three gold medals, and two of other colors. It would appear that she was the best sprinter in the world, right? Wrong! In 2007, America found out that her means to achieve her medals was illegal and immoral. She used performance enhancing drugs. Though she temporarily gained her goal, she lost it in the end, as the Associated Press reported, “She is broke, her reputation is ruined and she is looking at prison time. This shows that if we do not value pragmatism, we can lose our ideals. This brings me to my second contention…

Also, in your case, you said that it SEEMED that steroids would have achieved her goals without consequences. This means it would have work toward both the short-term and the long-term
Back to top Go down
Adam Sprecher




Number of posts : 33
Registration date : 2008-09-18

Adam's affirmative constructive Empty
PostSubject: Re: Adam's affirmative constructive   Adam's affirmative constructive EmptyTue Oct 28, 2008 7:57 pm

Yeah, exactly... to the best of her knowledge she thought steroids would solve her problems. If you are about to enter an international competition and you need an edge in order to win right away, what would the short-term solution be? It would be to do whatever it takes to win that competition. Long-term would be to look into the long lasting effects of the steroids (ie health issues, jail, bad press, etc) Remember, she achieved her short-term goal that she pursued pragmatically: she won the medals. In the long term, though, she lost out because she lost focus of morality, fair play, etc. She was being pragmatic because she was doing what worked in the day to day; if she acted idealistically she would have realized that there were more important things than just to win right away.

And in the broader picture, your contention basically says we need to value the means, right? Which means we should "behave based on how thing should be" in regards to the means? Isn't that the definition of idealism?

Does that make sense?
Back to top Go down
Sponsored content





Adam's affirmative constructive Empty
PostSubject: Re: Adam's affirmative constructive   Adam's affirmative constructive Empty

Back to top Go down
 
Adam's affirmative constructive
Back to top 
Page 1 of 1
 Similar topics
-
» Sam Chase's Negative Case, against one Mr. Mark Compton
» Adam's Negative constructive
» Morgan's Affirmative
» Preston's Negative Constructive
» Negative Constructive First Draft

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