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

 

 Carl's Negative Case

Go down 
2 posters
AuthorMessage
Carl

Carl


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

Carl's Negative Case Empty
PostSubject: Carl's Negative Case   Carl's Negative Case EmptyMon Oct 06, 2008 2:08 pm

study study study study Not done yet. study study study study

Imagine that one day you decide that you are going to try to make yourself debt-free, to get more independent in your spending. "Well," you say to yourself, "I don't make very much money. How will I do this?" You decide to rob a bank.

The pragmatic means to work towards an ideal, being debt free, is immoral, after all, your breaking the law. Your means must be valued above your ideal, because if you use a bad means, you often lose the reward, as I will show later. We must pay attention to keep our means morally correct.

My value, morality, is better upheld by negating the resolution, and this is why I stand resolved that in a conflict, Idealism ought NOT to be valued above pragmatism.

All definitions are defined by Merriam-Webster.
Conflict is defined as, “competitive or opposing action of incompatibles : antagonistic state or action (as of divergent ideas, interests, or persons).”
Idealism is defined as practice of forming ideals or living under their influence
Pragmatism is defined as a practical approach to problems and affairs
My value, morality is defined as conformity to “ideals of right human conduct.”

I would like to argue that pragmatism is necessary to achieve our goals, because if we undervalue the means, we may lose our goal, and the benefits of the goal.

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…

Contention Two- If we undervalue the means, we may lose the benefits of the goal. Allow me to bring back the analogy of the bank robbery. Most likely, you will be caught for your immoral means, and sent to prison. Now you have WAY less independence in your spending. Your means lost you the benefit of your goal. The same thing happened to Marion Jones. She was stripped of her medals, and is now in a worse state,all because she undervalued the means.

Now I would like to address the affirmative case…
Back to top Go down
Samara_C




Number of posts : 6
Registration date : 2008-09-18

Carl's Negative Case Empty
PostSubject: Helpful criticism   Carl's Negative Case EmptyThu Oct 09, 2008 10:56 am

Carl,
Over all, good case. If you're a negative speaker, you don't have to define your terms, only your value.

If you define those terms then you're essentially contesting your opponents definitions, which gets you into a value argument, which are exceedingly difficult to win.

The example of Marion Jones might not be the best choice. That's an example of where she had an ideal and worked towards it being pragmatic. Your opponent can argue that she held pragmatism and idealism at approximately the same level. You need to find an example where someone had an ideal and yet did not accomplish it, or did something morally wrong because of not being pragmatic.

You might want to try adding more info to your case. Once you take out the other definitions your case is about 2 minutes long. You have 7 minutes for your debate. It is important to save time for your rebuttal, but I guarantee that you won't be able to take good enough notes to talk for 5 minutes straight.

You should probably add more to your 2nd contention, and you could consider having a 3rd contention about value preeminence or warrant. Probably warrant, though, because you never came right out and said "This is why my value, morality, warrants the negation of the resolution."

I hope that's helpful!

Samara
Back to top Go down
 
Carl's Negative Case
Back to top 
Page 1 of 1
 Similar topics
-
» Samara's Negative Case
» Nic's Negative case
» Christian's negative case #1
» Carl's new negative case
» Kelsey's Negative Case-1

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