INTRO:
Imagine a small child, all of his dreams rest upon one object. That is a new bicycle and he begins to save his money to go and buy it. At first he starts out strong but as time goes on other thing begin to catch his eye and he thinks that it would not much money to buy candy or a basketball. Before you know it the child has lost focus of his goal and spent his savings on trivial objects. The slightly tragic story of this child leads me to affirm the resolution that when in conflict, idealism ought to be valued above pragmatism. The reason is that just as the child looked to the bicycle we as humans also have ultimate goals that we look too but just like the child we struggle not to lose focus on this goal and so we must emphasis on its pursuit.
PREVIEW:
Good afternoon. My name is Christian Colglazier and I will be the affirmative speaker for the following debate round. I would like to thank the judge, timer, and negative speaker for being here today. My value for this round will be Justice, and for the purpose of upholding my value I stand resolved when in conflict, idealism ought to be valued above pragmatism. In this case I will demonstrate that my value of Justice dictates that we affirm 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, Idealism is defined by American Heritage Dictionary as “the cherishing or pursuit of high or noble principles, purpose, goals, etc”. Second of all, Pragmatism is defined by Random House Dictionary as “character or conduct that emphasizes practicality“. Thirdly of all, Conflict is defined by Random House Dictionary as “to come into conflict or disagreements; be contradictory, at variance, or in opposition; clash”.
VALUE AND CRITERION:
My value for this round, Justice, is defined by Cambridge Dictionary of American English as “the condition of being morally correct or fair”. Justice is the highest value in the hierarchy of values because it allows us to keep just goals.
BURDENS:
In today’s debate round, I, the affirmative speaker, have the privilege of proving the truth of the resolution, which states, when in conflict, idealism ought to be valued above pragmatism. I must uphold the resolution through my three contentions for the purpose of achieving my value of Justice. If I fulfill my burdens, I should be granted the win.
THESIS STATEMENT:
My thesis statement is “Pragmatism does allow us to set goals.”
CONTENTION 1: The Conflict
Let us examine when these two, idealism and pragmatism, come into conflict and the devastating effects of valuing pragmatism higher in these situations.
1. The first I would like to address is that of WWII. At the start of WWII, the United States decided that all people of Japanese descent were a threat to our national security and so we came up with as solution to this problem. That solution was to put all of the Japanese Americans within our borders in internment camps and kept them their till the war ended. We attained our goal of the security but lost our focus on the ultimate goal of justice. Just as the child in the analogy.
2. The second example I would like to give is the attempted conversion of Central America by the Spanish Catholic priests. These priests had a great opportunity to do a lot of good and bring a society and lifestyle of justice to these people though their ministry and their attempt to convert to Christianity. But when they arrived they lost the ideal of justice in the pragmatic solution for a series of Old World politics problems. As the result this great opportunity was wasted, millions of people died, a society of tyranny was created and thrived on injustice and cause death for years. And finally, and maybe most important, racial and social hate was created that would ensure that the masses of Indians would never have true justice. All because over and over we lost our focus on justice just like the child.
CONTENTION 2: The Question
So now we are left with a perplexing problem, we have seen that maintaining our focus on the ultimate goal of justice is entirely necessary because with out we will have no chance to attain it. At the same time we have seen that we often times do this when turning to a practical approach. So how in the world do we ensure that we will not take our eyes of the prize? To what philosophy do we turn in order to ensure that protectors do not take root as tyrants in our society? How do we resolve this conflict?
CONTENTION 3: The Answer
The answer to these questions is found in the philosophy of idealism which was defined as “the cherishing or pursuit of high or noble principles, purpose, goals, etc”. We’ve seen that there is no higher principle or goal to pursue than justice. Placing a higher value on idealism than on pragmatism in the situation where we must choose does a couple things. The first is that it allows us to maintain our focus on justice, this allows us to continue to evaluate situations though the standards of whether or not they are just as opposed to whether or not they are going to achieve a short term goal.
REITERATION:
I, the affirmative speaker, have the privilege of insert burden. Throughout my contentions, I have argued three main points: 1) We do what works not what is Just 2) Pragmatism does not keep justice 3) Valuing Idealism more then Pragmatism allows us to make goals
VOTING ISSUES:
Thank you. I have fulfilled my burden and upheld the resolution. I now respectfully urge the judge to affirm the resolution. Thank you and I now stand ready for cross-examination and further points of clarification.
