Imagine with me for a second that you are running a race. You are working towards the finish line. But what if the race officials decided that, since there were so many people running the race, it would be too crowded? So they moved of the finish line to a wider road. But the official did not have time to inform the runners, and so you were not informed. You would just keep on running, and never get to a destination.
The finish line, in this analogy, is an ideal that we work towards. The race officials made a pragmatic choice to do what worked at the time, robbing the runners of the ideal.
This is why my thesis is that my value, Human Rights, is best upheld by affirming the resolution, and that is why I stand resolved that in a conflict, Idealism ought to be valued above pragmatism.
In order to provide mutual clarity in this debate, I will define my terms.
Firstly, Encarta® World English Dictionary, North American Edition defines conflict as “difference: a disagreement or clash between ideas, principles, or people.” Idealism is defined by The Wordsmyth English Dictionary-Thesaurus as “the pursuit of or belief in noble ideals, principles, and values.”
Compact Oxford English Dictionary defines value as “consider to be important or beneficial.”
Finally, pragmatism is defined by Encarta® World English Dictionary, North American Edition as “a straightforward practical way of thinking about things or dealing with problems, concerned with results rather than with theories and principles.”
Encarta® World English Dictionary, North American Edition defines my value, human rights as ‘freedom, justice, and equality: the rights that are considered by most societies to belong automatically to everyone, e.g. the rights to freedom, justice, and equality.”
Human Rights is the highest value in the high achy of values, because human rights our human rights must be upheld for us to work properly and freely.
Now that I have defined my terms, I would like to move on to my contentions.
Contention One- Pragmatism compromises our human rights. Today I would like to bring up the historical example of World War II. While the battle in the pacific raged, the US decided that people of Japanese decent were a threat to national security, and came up with a very practical solution to this “problem.” They imprisoned all Japanese-Americans in internment camps, and held them there until the end of the war, violating their Human Rights. While this could have made “national security,” it robed the Japanese-Americans to be able to obtain Human Rights, just like the race officials.
Contention Two- Idealism values our human rights. When Idealism is valued, so is our human rights. When ideal such as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, as found in the declaration of independence, are valued, our human rights are as well. As President Jimmy Carter said, “America did not invent human rights. In a very real sense human rights invented America.” Though in many cases America did not uphold human rights, but in many cases it did, and that was because it followed the ideals upon which it was founded.
Since pragmatism compromises our human rights, and Idealism values our human rights, I am resolved that my value, human rights is best upheld by affirming the resolution, and so I urge and affirmative ballot.
I now stand ready for cross examination and further points of clarification.
Would you say the security is a part of human rights? Well it depends on what kind of security you are talking about. After all-- National security. Than in some cases, yes.
In the World War II example, would you say that National security was thought as a higher ideal than human rights? The example show that they compromised human rights for it so, Yes, I guess it was.
So would you say that is was another ideal that compromised human rights, and not pragmatism? Um…yes, but there was also pragmatism that did it. Thanks.
Would you say that a government that is immoral does not uphold human rights? Yes, I do.
Would you, than, say that a moral government upholds human rights? In most cases.
So to uphold Human Rights, you must be moral? Except for a few times, Yes.
So Human Rights need morality? Yes
Imagine that one day you decide that you are going to try to make yourself debt-free, to get more independent in your spending. "Well," you say to yourself, "I don't make very much money. How will I do this?" You decide to rob a bank.
The pragmatic means to work towards an ideal, being debt free, is immoral, after all, your breaking the law. Your means must be valued above your ideal, because if you use a bad means, you often lose the reward, as I will show later. We must pay attention to keep our means morally correct.
My value, morality, is better upheld by negating the resolution, and this is why I stand resolved that in a conflict, Idealism ought NOT to be valued above pragmatism.
All definitions are defined by Merriam-Webster.
Conflict is defined as, “competitive or opposing action of incompatibles : antagonistic state or action (as of divergent ideas, interests, or persons).”
Idealism is defined as practice of forming ideals or living under their influence
Pragmatism is defined as a practical approach to problems and affairs
My value, morality is defined as conformity to “ideals of right human conduct.”
I would like to argue that pragmatism is necessary to achieve our goals, because if we undervalue the means, we may lose our goal, and the benefits of the goal.
Contention One- If we undervalue the means, we may lose our goal. If we do not realize the consequences of our actions, we will often not reach our goal. Just like if you drive somewhere without good, realistic directions to your destination, failing to make practical decisions, will not get you where you want to go. Allow me to bring up the historical example of American track star Marion Jones. In the 2000 Summer Olympics, she wan three gold medals, and two of other colors. It would appear that she was the best sprinter in the world, right? Wrong! In 2007, America found out that her means to achieve her medals was illegal and immoral. She used performance enhancing drugs. Though she temporarily gained her goal, she lost it in the end, as the Associated Press reported, “She is broke, her reputation is ruined and she is looking at prison time. This shows that if we do not value pragmatism, we can lose our ideals. This brings me to my second contention…
Contention Two- If we undervalue the means, we may lose the benefits of the goal. Allow me to bring back the analogy of the bank robbery. Most likely, you will be caught for your immoral means, and sent to prison. Now you have WAY less independence in your spending. Your means lost you the benefit of your goal. The same thing happened to Marion Jones. She was stripped of her medals, and is now in a worse state, all because she undervalued the means.
Now I would like to address the affirmative case…
In the first contention, my opponent brought up Japanese-Americans in World War II. He said that pragmatism compromised Human rights. But in cross-ex, agreed that it was another IDEAL compromising human rights.
He also agreed that Human rights need morality, my value.
Thank you, and I now stand ready for cross examination.
