first draft negative of James case

“For our purposes, we define William James’s theory of pragmatism to mean that instead of just talking about something, you should get out and do it. An idea doesn't have a worth until it is acted upon.” This powerful quote comes from Andy Stoll.
Good afternoon my name is James Apple and I will be the negative speaker for the following debate round. I would like to thank the judge, timer and the affirmative
speaker for being here today. My value for this round will be security and for the purpose of upholding my value I stand resolved that Without Pragmatism Idealism is useless. In this case I will demonstrate that my value of security dictates that we negate the resolution.



<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><<>
!!!! If necessary !!!!
I would like to offer two contrary definitions of pragmatism and idealism. Pragmatism is defined by Webster’s dictionary we a practical approach to problems Idealism is defined by Webster’s as conception of ideas
><><><><><><<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Value and Criterion:
My value for this round , security, is defined by Webster’s dictionary as “Freedom from risk or danger”.
Security is the highest value in the hierarchy of values because it is a basic need for a human to feel safe in the places they work, play and raise a family.

BURDENS:
In today’s debate round, I, the negative speaker, have the privilege of negating the resolution, which states When in conflict, idealism ought to be valued above pragmatism.. I must negate the resolution through my three contentions for the purpose of achieving my value of security. If I fulfill my burdens, I should be granted the win.

THESIS STATEMENT:
My thesis statement is that Without Pragmatism Idealism is useless.

CONTENTION 1:
Thought without action is useless. You can not win a race by standing at the front and envisioning every step. Instead using the pragmatic way of running the race AND the idealistic way of looking at where you are going THAT’S how you run a race.

CONTENTION 2:
It is more beneficial to society value Pragmatism EQUAL to Idealism While pragmatism may be necessary to achieve those goals you need Idealism to keep you on track towards the final goal.

CONTENTION 3:
Pragmatism is the only way to be secure in our nation. For example if we really were in a true conflict or war would you be more secure by imagining and planning a defense system for 20 years or building one to the best of our possible ability at the moment? You tell me! An example of pragmatism is how our congress decided to nationalize the banking industry by investing in private banks in order to stabilize our economy. They saw the pragmatic decision would save them from the consequences. we have yet to see if this will benefit or degrade America but in the short term I believe this was the best solution

If we had not done this then America would go into a national depression millions upon millions of jobs would have been lost and businesses would fail causing people to be unable to buy food.

Now I would like to address my opponents case which states...
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
|=>
|=>
|=>


REITERATION:
I, the negative speaker, have the privilege of negating the resolution and being in favor of the pragmatic way. Throughout my contentions, I have argued 3 main points. First thought without action is useless second It is more beneficial to society to value pragmatism equally to idealism and last Pragmatism is the only way to be secure in our nation


VOTING ISSUES:
Thank you. I have fulfilled my burden and negated the resolution. I now respectfully urge the judge to negate the resolution. Thank you and I now stand ready for cross-examination and further points of clarification.

Quote :

When in conflict, idealism ought to be valued above pragmatism..

Make sure you quote the resolution exactly:
When in conflict, idealism ought to be valued above pragmatism.

Quote :

First of all, Pragmatism is defined by Webster’s dictionary we a practical approach to problems Idealism is defined by Webster’s as conception of ideas

Since this is your negative case, you will need to make a comment stating that you would like to offer two alternative definitions for pragmatism and idealism. (this of course assumes that they are significantly different from your opponents definitions.) You may also want to clarify why you are offering an alternate definition if it is key to your case. If your definitions aren't significantly different from your opponents than you wouldn't need to offer alternatives.


After your 3rd contention you will want to say something like: Now I'd like to address my opponents case. I will do this by highlighting what I believe are the major issues we disagree on.. I'll start with his value... Or I'll start with his first contention and then end up discussing our values.. or something to this effect.

Of course you will ideally save room for your final conclusion that allows you to reiterate your points. but if you don't have time to reiterate your points you might want to have a really GREAT quote to end with.

Check my case now see if it works

Your case is very good and I think that your positions on the resolution are excellent.Especially as you took your case and applied it to the real world example of Security.The only other thing I would say is to change your quote because it doesn't seem to apply to your case.

Here are just a few things I noticed while reading through your case:


Your thesis is:
"My thesis statement is that Without Pragmatism Idealism is useless."

The affirmative can say:
1. This is not the case, since Idealism is still the pursuit of, or behavior towards a goal.
2. Even if this was the case, this is not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing Idealism above Pragmatism, not Idealism without Pragmatism.

Your First contention is:
"Thought without action is useless."

However, Idealism can be defined as the pursuit of, or behavior towards a goal. Since the Affirmative is going to set out the definition first, and since they will most likely win a definitional debate on that (given that a lot of definitions include the "pursuit" language, I think this argument will most likely be pretty weak if the affirmative has a good definition.

Your value preeminence argument is:
"Security is the highest value in the hierarchy of values because it is a basic need for a human to feel safe in the places they work, play and raise a family."

I'll act as if I'm using my Affirmative case (Value=Human Rights).

I would contest that we should value Human Rights above Security. Take the example of the patriot act, while it grants us a greater degree of security, to achieve this security it takes away the very rights it is supposed to defend. If we value Security as preeminent to Human Rights, then we could end up in an Orwellian society, in which all people are secure from attack, and violation of their rights if for no other reason than that they have all been sacrificed at the altar of Security. Once we grant agencies such as the government the power to remove one set of rights to protect another, we will inevitably lose them all. I would like to end with a quote from Benjamin Franklin, "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."


Hope that all helps!