Okay, here are my cross-x questions... Before each line of questions I'll put the goal of that line of questions so it's easier to follow.
As the negative speaker-
This line of questions is to show that pragmatism is important in conflict..
1. Isn't pragmatism, concisely put, a practical way of doing things?
2. According to the resolution, we are debating in the context of a conflict, are we not?
3. Don't you believe it is necessary to be practical during conflict?
4. Could anyone even survive in a conflict without being, to some extent, practical?
5. So practicality is necessary in conflict?
6. Then this would mean, since we already agreed that pragmatism is basically practicality, that pragmatism is necessary in conflict?
This line of questions attempts to show that pragmatism and idealism are equally important..
1. According to your definition of idealism, idealism is basically desiring a goal and working towards it, correct?
2. Pragmatism can be defined as being practical, correct?
3. Is not being practical vital to pursuing a goal?
4. Without practicality it would be impossible to actually pursue anything effectively, correct?
5. Wouldn't this mean that idealism needs pragmatism in order to actually be of value?
Line of questions for showing value preeminence (my value is prudence)
1. Can you be imprudent in pursuing (affirmative value)?
2. Without prudence, isn't pursuing (affirmative value) dangerous/pointless?
3. Actually, isn't "skill and good judgment in the use of resources" (def. of prudence) similar to pragmatism?
4. Then wouldn't it follow that pursuing (affirmative value) without pragmatism itself be dangerous/pointless?
So those are my neg. cross-x questions. These are my affirmative ones...
This line of questions attempts to show that pragmatism, when used to reach a goal/ideal, is encompassed within the definition of idealism.
1. Do you agree with my definition of idealism, which is "behavior or thought based on a conception of things as they should be or as one would wish them to be; idealization?"
2. Is pragmatism one method of working towards a goal?
3. Would you consider working towards a goal included in the meaning of "behavior based on a conception of things as they should be or as one would wish them to be?"
4. Would you agree that the whole is greater than a part of the whole?
5. What would you value more, the means by which you accomplish a goal, or the goal itself?
Line of questions attempting to show the negative speaker is using idealism. This line of questions is a little iffy in my mind.. I'd appreciate it if anybody'd comment on it and give me some feedback...
1. Do you believe your value is preeminent?
2. Do you think it's a goal worth pursuing?
3. If we were in a "perfect" world, you would say we would have attained your value, correct?
4. Because you didn't offer an alternative definition of idealism, I assume you agree with my definition, is that correct? (my definition is mentioned above, by the way)
5. We would pursue your value "based on a conception of things as they should be or as one would wish them to be," wouldn't we?
6. According to the definition of idealism, isn't trying to attain your ideal (ie, your value) idealism?
7. Since you would say pursuing this value is preeminent, wouldn't idealism be preeminent?
Line of questions based on value preeminence (my value is responsibility)
1. Is it possible to be irresponsible with your value?
2. Wouldn't irresponsibly pursuing your value be detrimental?
3. We would need to be responsible in pursuing your value, correct?
4. So then, before we attained your value, we would need my value of responsibility, correct?
I know that's a lot of questions. Any advice I can get on 'em would be great!
