INTRO:
Imagine three people with a bow and arrow. The first is an idealist. He stands twenty feet from a target with the goal of shooting an arrow in the center of the target. He just thinks about his goal and does not take the practical way and shoot at the target.
At the next target a pragmatist is just shooting arrows at random. He some times hits the target, other times he does not. He hits the target but has no goal of where to hit.
At the last target is someone who values idealism and pragmatism equally. He has a goal and is taking the practical way of achieving his goal. He hits the center of the target several times.
PREVIEW:
Good afternoon. My name is Christian Colglazier 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 Justice, and for the purpose of upholding my value I stand resolved “When in conflict idealism ought not to be valued above pragmatism”. In this case I will demonstrate that my value of Justice 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, 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 negative speaker, have the privilege of negating the resolution, which states, “When in conflict idealism ought not to be valued above pragmatism”. I will negate the resolution through my two 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 idealism and pragmatism should be value equally.
CONTENTION #1:
Idealism sets goals and pragmatism achieves goals. Valuing them equally we can come up with good goal and do what is practical to achieve that goal. Just like the third archer in my analogy. We do not place more value on ideas or on the way we achieve those goals.
CONTENTIONS 2
If we value Idealism above pragmatism we will loose the ability to achieve justice. By valuing idealism above pragmatism we will be focused on too many ideals and loose sight of justice. If you value life and justice then you have to judge a serial killer. It is just to execute him but your value of life says that he should live. But if you value idealism and pragmatism equally you would do what is practical which is sentencing him to death.
REITERATION:
I, the negative speaker, have the privilege of insert burden. Throughout my contentions, I have argued two main points: 1) Idealism sets goals and pragmatism achieves goals 2) If we value Idealism above pragmatism we will loose the ability to achieve justice
VOTING ISSUES:
Thank you. I have fulfilled my burden and upheld/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.
