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

 

 AC First Draft

Go down 
AuthorMessage
Guest
Guest




AC First Draft Empty
PostSubject: AC First Draft   AC First Draft EmptyWed Oct 08, 2008 11:49 am

Hello, My name is Skellie Hunt and I am the affirmative speaker for today’s debate round.

insert illustration. still working on the right one.

It is because the importance of Humanity, which is my value, that I believe we must affirm the resolution which states: Resolved: When in conflict, idealism ought to be valued above pragmatism. Before I move on to build my case let me define a few of the key terms in this resolution: All of my definitions come from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th ed.

Definitions:
Idealism is the theory that the object of external perception, in itself or as perceived, consists of ideas.
Conflict is a state of disharmony between incompatible or antithetical persons, ideas, or interests; a clash.
Pragmatism is defined as the doctrine which states that the meaning of an idea or a proposition lies in its observable practical consequences.
Humanity is defined as the condition or quality of being human. As in; the quality of being humane; benevolence.

C1: Idealism is essential in maintaining our integrity in conflict.
Conflict cannot occur without dissimilar ideas being held by different persons. When we enter into a conflict we often lose sight of our ideals and resort to pragmatic techniques. However, these ideals that we put aside are, in fact; the very reason for our conflict. We felt strongly about a certain idea, strongly enough that we felt that it must be upheld, even if conflict was necessary. We feel strongly about an idea because it is important. That which is important to us is so because of its effects. These ideals may be moral, relating to our religious views, or it may be related to a matter of efficiency, safety, or any other value named.
When we put aside our ideals for the pragmatic we may begin to approach the edge of a slippery slope of methods. When we are in the trenches, so to speak, our decisions are morphed from what they would have been in a normal situation. The immediacy of the situation, the stress, and other factors influence our choices. If we do not keep in mind why we are there and why it is important enough to us to fight for, we can be brought to a level where our methods can degrade to the point of inhumanity. It happens slowly and imperceptibly. We begin to use what works over what is right by our standards. Eventually, no atrocity is shocking, no misuse of power taboo, no method is too harsh. After all, it works does it not?
An example that comes to mind is times of war. Countries go to war for different reasons, but many times it is because of an injustice being inflicted by another country on innocent people. We can go to war with the idealistic approach that we will save innocents by defeating the enemy. However, often once the war is in progress we lose sight of our original, honorable ideal. When this happens, the soldiers of "justice" often commit more heinous crimes against humanity than the "enemy." When we forsake our idealistic approach for one of cold, efficient pragmatism, we quickly become what we abhor and set out to extinguish. Why is this true? Well, the answer lies in my second contention.

C2: Pragmatism, when valued over idealism, leads to the dehumanization of society in thought and process.
When problems are addressed in the quickest way at the least cost, problems occur in the long run. These may range from an athlete who is punished for the use of steroids in the past to the collapse of a nation because of band-aid economic fixes. Athletes such as Terry Bradshaw, Marion Jones, and Jason Giambi used steroids because it was what worked at the time. They did not foresee the results of their actions, now they face expellment from their sports, fines of millions of dollars, and public disgrace and humiliation. Not only that, but many times their bodies and minds are seriously and permanently damaged from steroid use. These are the most obvious effects, but many would argue that the example that have set for todays youth is far more damaging and long-reaching in it's effects. Yet, this self-destructive attitude of instant gratification seems to be the norm for our nation. Years of irresponsible corporate and government leaders have made decisions to temporarily fix problems because it was the way that worked. The problem with approaching situations with a view that values pragmatism over idealism is that we end up fixing the symptoms, not the disease. We must act with the future in mind, we must act idealistically, we must think ahead and realize the latent as well as the manifest results of our actions.
Any machine can fix problems, it takes human creativity and abstract thought to use pragmatism to reach our ideals. The increasing mechanization of our modern society, with its abstraction of work and separation from other people has led to a completely pragmatic American world view which operates on the plane of the instant individual, ignoring the effects of time and fellow man. This is not right. The human is a organism of social interaction and community, we must make our decisions based on our true surroundings, not based on what we see, which is often nothing but a flat screen and the walls of our houses and offices.

Conclusion:
This is why we must affirm the resolution, "When in conflict, idealism ought to be valued above pragmatism." If we do not, then we will sacrifice our humanity through the degradation of our integrity and societal existence. As the affirmative speaker, I have fulfilled my burden and upheld the resolution through my two contentions; "Idealism is essential in maintaining our integrity in conflict," and "Pragmatism, when valued over idealism, leads to the dehumanization of society in thought and process."
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

AC First Draft Empty
PostSubject: Thanks for posting   AC First Draft EmptyTue Oct 14, 2008 2:54 pm

Skellie, I love the ideas that you have posted in your case. You've put a lot of thought into this and it shows. Now I need your help to make this case even clearer. The way you'll do this is by providing some concrete examples or analogies.
When I red your first argument (contention 1) I thought about some of the recent debates over inhumane treatment of war prisoners and inhumane interrogation techniques. Do a little research here and I bet you'll find a perfect example to make your case come alive for your judge.

I'd also like you to work on the wording of your 2nd contention.
Quote :
Pragmatism, when valued over idealism, leads to the dehumanization of society in thought and process.

I would love for this statement to stand alone without a lot of explanation needed. I understand the points you are trying to make as I read through the support of this contention, but I end up hearing a lot of great thoughts, some great examples, but not a clear understanding of how they come together to make a clear and establish point.
Back to top Go down
 
AC First Draft
Back to top 
Page 1 of 1
 Similar topics
-
» first draft negative of James case
» Negative Constructive First Draft
» Preston's Affimitave 2nd draft
» Rough draft of James C.'s new aff
» Nathaniel Sprecher's Platform Speech Topic

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