Nic's Negative case

QUOTE:
Thomas A. Edison once said “Restlessness and discontent are the first necessities of progress.”

PREVIEW:

Good afternoon. My name is Nicolas Cuany and I will be the negative speaker for the following debate round. I would like to thank the judge, timer, and affirmative speaker for being here today. My value for this round will be progress, and for the purpose of upholding my value I must negate the resolution which states “When in conflict, idealism ought to be valued above pragmatism” but rather state that idealism and Pragmatism should be valued equally. In this case I will demonstrate that my value of progress dictates that we negate the resolution.

DEFINITIONS:

In order to provide clarity and mutual understanding in today’s debate round, I will define some of the key terms that are found within the resolution and that I will be using extensively throughout the following round. First of all,
Pragmatism is defined as “when you deal with a problem in a realistic way rather than obeying fixed theories, ideas or rules” by Cambridge International Dictionary of English.
Idealism is defined as “a theory that only mental states or entities are knowable” by Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, 11th Edition.
Conflict is defined as “A fighting; combat” by Webster's 1828 Dictionary

VALUE AND CRITERION:

My value for this round, progress, is defined by Infoplease Dictionary as “a movement toward a goal or to a further or higher stage”. Progress is the highest value in the hierarchy of values because without progress, nothing would be accomplished.

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 progress. If I fulfill my burdens, I should be granted the win.

THESIS STATEMENT: My thesis statement is: Pragmatism and Idealism ought to be valued equally

CONTENTION #1: Idealism with out Pragmatism is bad: I would like to talk to you abut three men. The first man, an idealist, wants to go climbing. He thinks of getting to the top of the mountain and nothing else. He gets his gear ready and once he has gotten over half way up the mountain he realizes he doesn’t have enough rope to get to the top. This man has kept his ideal higher than taking a pragmatic view of things as well and wasn't fully prepared. If we value idealism more we wont realize some of the possible dangers before us.

CONTENTION #2 Pragmatism without Idealism is bad: Now, the second man, a Pragmatist, gets his gear ready and while climbing gets stuck on the rock, so he moves over to another side of the rock. He again gets stuck and keeps moving sideways along the rock, but never getting to the top. He has put Pragmatism above Idealism and cant get anything completed. But if we value Pragmatism and Idealism together, than we will be able to progress throughout life.

CONTENTION #3 Pragmatism and Idealism is better when used together: The third man has his gear and rope. He makes sure that he has extra rope if he gets stuck. When he faces a problem on the rock he moves and continues to climb until he finally gets to the top. This man has considered any possible problems that he might encounter and prepared for them, yet has still kept his goal on getting to the top.

REITERATION:

I, the negative speaker, have the privilege of negating the resolution. Throughout my contentions, I have argued three main points: 1) Idealism with out Pragmatism is bad 2) Pragmatism without Idealism is bad 3) Pragmatism and Idealism is better when used together

CLOSING QUOTE:

I would like to close with a quote from Franklin D. Roosevelt, who once proclaimed, “There are many ways of going forward, but only one way of standing still.”

VOTING ISSUES:

Thank you. I would now like to talk about my opponents case:

First of all, I would like to say, good job!! Now I am going to rebutt your case

To begin, I would like to look at my opponents first contention, which states "Idealism without Pragmatism is bad" First of all, Idealism is not "bad" it is a very good thing, it puts our goals in perspective and allows us to reach for something. Secondly, let's look at his second contention which is "Pragmatism without Idealism is bad". Pragmatism is, indeed, pointless without Idealism. This contention better supports the affirmative ballot, thus I agree with my opponent.
So I would like to conclude by saying that the judge should cast an affirmative ballot because of my contentions, (yadda yadda yadda).


Ok, The only other thing I would say is that you should not use "bad" but pointless or something a little more pointed and direct.

thanks but about your first rebuttal i would say something like "yes idealism isn't bad, unless it is held above Pragmatism. Idealism and Pragmatism should be valued the same"