An experiment

This is case inspired by the discussion on the interpretation of the resolution. I might, might, use it when its refined. So far it doesn't have a value or any definitions. Just wanted to know whether this sounds like I'm just asking to loose. And I know the summation is long.

Contention One – The conflict stated in the resolution is conflict between pragmatism and idealism over the best way to achieve an ideal.

The resolution for this debate states “when in conflict, idealism ought to be valued over pragmatism.” The conflict referred to in this resolution is conflict between idealism and pragmatism. After all, it does not say: when America is in conflict, or when the world is in conflict. The only things in the resolution that could possibly be in conflict are idealism and pragmatism. So, if idealism and pragmatism are in conflict, what are they fighting about? Let me answer that for you. They are in conflict over the vast ways to achieve an ideal. After all that is what this resolution is all about. Idealism is used to achieve ideals, and pragmatism is taking practical action toward a goal, or an ideal. What else can idealism and pragmatism come into conflict over? The only time where idealism and pragmatism come into conflict is when they are attempting to achieve the same ideal. So, thus far, we have determined that in this resolution it is not, in fact, external forces that are in conflict, but pragmatism and idealism themselves. And the thing they are in conflict over is the best way to achieve an ideal. The determining factor in the conflict would then be which one is more effective at achieving ideals, correct? This leads us to my second contention.

Contention Two – Idealism is infinitely more effective at achieving ideals, because pragmatism is merely a part of idealism.

As I said in my last contention, the determining factor in the conflict between idealism and pragmatism is their ability to achieve ideals. Therefore, if idealism is more effective at achieving ideals than pragmatism, then we should affirm the resolution. And it is. Let me tell you how. Idealism is the only way to achieve ideals. It is the only option; pragmatism is not even a viable alternative. That is because pragmatism is a part of idealism. It is a tool inherently contained in idealism. If we value our ideal, and we work toward it, we will naturally be practical about achieving it. We don’t even need to value pragmatism. Pragmatism is a term used for the way in which idealists practically achieve their ideals. It is not something we must value in order to use; it is something that stems naturally out of pragmatism. If we value our ideals and work toward them, of course we will be practical about achieving them! If we weren’t, we wouldn’t be true idealists. There is no need to negate the resolution; we can both pragmatism and idealism if we affirm! However, if we negate the resolution, we are saying we value the part over the whole! How foolish would that be? We must affirm this resolution so that we do not end up valuing a part over the whole, and ruining our chances of attaining our ideals.

A quick summation

I would like to give a quick summation of my arguments in this section of my case.

We began by pointing out that the conflict mentioned in the resolution is quite plainly conflict between idealism and pragmatism, not conflict in general. We progressed from there to point out that the only time idealism and pragmatism come into conflict is when they are attempting to achieve an ideal. Then, we made the obvious logical conclusion that the way to decide between two sides in a conflict over achieving ideals would be to choose the most effective method of achieving ideals. So, the affirmation or negation of the resolution depends upon whether idealism of pragmatism is more effective at achieving ideals. If idealism is more effective, then we should affirm. We then saw that pragmatism is merely a part of idealism, because practical action will follow if we value our ideals. Therefore, idealism is a whole of which pragmatism is a part. This makes idealism both more valuable, and more effective at achieving ideals.

Thank you. And I urge for an affirmative ballot because pragmatism is just a part of idealism, and valuing the part over the whole is foolish.

First of all I'm gonna say that I really like your second contention. I think it's one of the top affirmative arguments out there.

Here's something to think about, though: in your first contention, you say that the conflict in the resolution is a conflict between idealism and pragmatism, right? Then you go on to say in your first contention that they conflict because they are different ways of achieving ideals. But then in your second contention, you say that idealism should be valued more because pragmatism is only a part of idealism. So listen to this: how could they conflict if pragmatism is merely a part of idealism? You say that pragmatism is only a way that idealists achieve their ideals. That doesn't sound like idealism and pragmatism conflicting, it sounds like pragmatism is working under idealism to accomplish something.

So then, with your interpretation of the word 'conflict' in the resolution, for the resolution to be true, idealism and pragmatism would actually have to conflict. In your second contention, you pretty much say they don't conflict, but that pragmatism is a part of idealism. So your second contention is basically saying that the resolution is untrue because idealism and pragmatism actually dont conflict at all.

Again I really like the argument in your second contention. I just don't think you can use it with that interpretation of the conflict talked about in the resolution.

Believe it or not, I actualy thought about that, and here's what I've got.

Why can't they conflict? It's not as uncommon as you would think for someone to be asked to value a part over a whole. We are currently in an economic crisis that is the result of politicians valuing lower income families over the entire population.

My interpretation may not make logical sense, but that doesn't mean its impossible to interpret the resolution that way. It could be that the resolution is illogical.

What do you think?

Well, in the example you used, yeah, they did value the part over the whole, but was it right to do so? Probably not. Yes you are often asked to value the part over the whole but I still can't think of a time where valuing the part over the whole was actually the right thing to do.

Once again, I like the arguments stating that pragmatism is part of idealism, but for the reasons I just gave I still don't really think it'd work with that interpretation of the resolution.

(and by the way, it generally isn't a good idea for the affirmative to call the resolution illogical, because if it's illogical, why would you affirm it?)

I meant that negating would be illogical.

My point was that sometime the part and the whole do conlifct. Obviously, they conlfict in the sense of this resolution. So, this case isn't completely illogical.

BTW, I sort of incorporated this whole thing into my new case. And it make more sense when you look at it there.

All I'm saying is that the first contention is spent showing how the resolution is in the context of conflict between idealism and pragmatism. In the second contention you say how pragmatism is part of idealism, because "practical action will follow if we value our ideals." That's saying that pragmatism is used under idealism, as a kind of idealism. If it is actually being used to accomplish an ideal, then it's still idealism anyway, and couldn't be conflicting w/ idealism as a whole simply because it IS idealism.
The only thing that could be conflicting here is different kinds of idealism. Either way, the affirmative wins. (which btw i concede is a good thing because your ARE affirmative here)