Here is my Negative case. The definitions inside the "*'s" are just in case I need to contest the opponents definitions. I don't normally intend to use them. I have re-edited in the additions I have made to my case recently. With that said, here it is:
Henry Louis Mencken once said, “Idealist: One who, on noticing that a rose smells better than a cabbage, concludes that it will also make better soup”
Hello, I am Samuel Johnson and I will be the Negative speaker for this round. My value is Human Rights, and to uphold this value I stand resolved that, when in conflict Idealism ought not to be valued above Pragmatism. I will demonstrate how my value of Human rights dictates that we negate the resolution.
*************** Only supply definitions where needed
Human Rights is defined by the Merriam Webster Dictionary as, “rights regarded as belonging fundamentally to all persons.”
First, Idealism is defined as, “The pursuit of or belief in noble ideals, principles, and values” by the Wordsymth dictionary.
The Encarta World dictionary defines Pragmatism as, “A straightforward practical way of thinking about things or dealing with problems, concerned with results rather than with theories and principles.”
The Encarta World dictionary defines Conflict, as, “A disagreement or clash between ideas, principles, or people.”
***************
My first contention is that we should value Idealism and Pragmatism equally. Imagine you want to build a house, you want the house built, but merely wanting the house will not make it. You must use pragmatic means to achieve your goal, acquiring construction materials, using tools, perhaps hiring other people to help you in making the house. As you can see, you must value both the means and the goal, they do not conflict. You can not complete a task unless you approach it with a mindset focused on dealing with the problems that arise and fixing them in a manner which works. Just as in the house example, ideally you may want to have you house in a specific part of your land, but if there is a swamp there you would clearly take the practical choice and construct your house in an area which is more suitable. Therefore, it is apparent that when undertaking some task, we must value both Idealism and Pragmatism equally, for without one we have no goal, and without the other we can not achieve our goal.
My second contention is that if we value Idealism above Pragmatism, achieving our goal either becomes impossible or prohibitively costly. William F. Buckley once said, “Idealism is fine, but as it approaches reality, the costs become prohibitive.” If we only value an end without paying careful attention to the means by which the goal is accomplished, we will not reach the goal. Take the issue of Human Rights abuse throughout the world, the United States could take a purely Idealistic approach and attempt to stop every Human Rights abuse in every part of the world, or we could couple our goal of equality in Human Rights with a practical approach and work with others to remove Human Rights abuse in one place, and then the next as we are able. As is clear from Buckley’s quote, we simply cannot afford to approach every situation in a purely idealistic manner, for with this approach we would merely make ourselves ineffective in all of our endeavors since we would overstretch ourselves. For this reason it is clear that if we value Idealism above Pragmatism we cannot achieve our goals, thereby negating the usefulness of Idealism.
Take the example of the ending of slavery in America and the United Kingdom. In the UK abolitionists worked to end slavery tirelessly, but rather than only denouncing the practice as evil, they also offered a practical solution. The House of Commons offered to compensate all slave holders for the lost value of their emancipated slaves, to the amount of 20 million pounds. This is equivalent to $170 million dollars in 1865. However, because the British government offered a practical solution to the issue of slavery, England abolished slavery peacefully. In the United States, abolitionists also worked tirelessly to remove slavery, but while they denounced it fervently, they never offered a practical solution to remove the institution without utterly destroying the economic foundations of the South. Many Southerner’s wealth was primarily based in their slave holdings; if they lost their slaves without compensation they would be ruined. It would have cost 4.8billion dollars to buy all of the slaves at market price. The Civil War cost 11.6billion dollars and caused between 700,000-1,000,000 casualties. This does not even account for lost work value of the 1.8 million soldiers in both armies, or the lost value from damaged property. The cost of buying every slave in the entire US was only 41% of the cost of waging the war. Because the US abolitionists did not approach the problem of slavery with pragmatism, focused on what works, hundreds of thousands of lives were needlessly lost, and billions of dollars spent needlessly spent. Idealism, when valued above Pragmatism causes far more damage than good.
I will now address the Affirmative case.
I look forward to any comments or advice on it!
