This is not the most recent version look on the forum page again to find draft two. Originally I didn't know that I could just edit my case. 
Hello my name is Preston Rodeniser and today it is my pleasure to taking the affirmative side in today’s debate. First I would like to thank the judges, timer and my opponent for being here today.
My value for this debate will be morality which I believe is very important value to uphold. My reason is that through morality other values may be achieved. I also feel that Idealism upholds morality better than Pragmatism. And for these reasons I stand firmly resolved that we should affirm the resolution which states: When in conflict idealism ought to be valued above pragmatism.
I will now define some of the main terms for this debate round.
The word Idealism as defined by the Cambridge Dictionary of American English is: A striving to achieve one’s ideals.
This brings me to my next definition, ideal, which is found in the Encarta World English Dictionary. It is defined as: A standard or principle to which people aspire.
My definition of morality can be found in the Cambridge Dictionary of American English as: a personal or social set of standards for good or bad behavior and character, or the quality of being right and honest. The word pragmatism as defined in the Cambridge Dictionary of American English as: Dealing with a problem in a realistic way rather than obeying fixed theories, ideas or rules. In other words a pragmatist is inconsistent, which brings me to my first contention.
C1-Idealism is consistent whereas Pragmatism is inconsistent
To understand this contention we must understand the meaning of the word consistent. Consistent is defined as: holding always to the same principles or practice (New World College Dictionary) and obviously inconsistent is the opposite.
Everyone has a set of morals. These morals are what help us decide what is right and wrong. And as a pragmatist you are not able to fulfill your morals in every choice you make because, even if you have a set of morals, you do not always obey them.
I would like to take a moment to illustrate my point. Imagine that there is a missionary trying to convert some people in a foreign country. The country in which he is staying is very hostile towards Christianity. One evening as the missionary is teaching a group of locals, a police squad breaks into the home where they are and arrests the missionary. After the police are finished questioning the evangelist, they tell him to never preach again.
The missionary now has a choice. Should he continue to do what is morally right in his eyes and preach to the locals? Or should he return to his home until it is safe enough to return? A pragmatist would retreat to the safety of his home and not and disregard his ideal of evangelism. Whereas an idealist would continue to strive towards his ideals.
The Pragmatic view is inconsistent because, like the missionary, in different situations different choices will be taken according to what works the best. With an Idealist approach no matter what the consequences you will stick to your morals and ideals.
C2-Pragmatism is inconsistent and is therefore immoral
If a person is inconsistent then he or she does not always choose to follow his or her own morals and is therefore obviously immoral. So is it with the Pragmatist. The exact opposite can be said about the Idealist. The Idealist, who is consistent, chooses the same path no matter what the situation in order to uphold their morals. Notice that I am not claiming that idealists are without fault. I am simply stating that an Idealist follows his or her morals to a closer degree.
I want you to remember the situation that I spoke of earlier. In which the evangelist must choose whether to take the Pragmatic approach or the Idealistic approach. The pragmatic approach is to choose what seems best without consulting your morals. Without consulting your morals when making choices you choose not to be moral.
If many of the choices made by a Pragmatist are immoral then Pragmatism does not uphold my value of morality.
I would like to finish off by restating my contentions.
In my first contention I explained that Pragmatism can be inconsistent because when using a Pragmatist mindset choices are sometimes made without consulting your own morals. I further stated that Idealism is much more consistent in following morals because, Idealism uses its morals in order to make choices.
My final contention stated that by being inconsistent, Pragmatism is also immoral. I once again mentioned the evangelist and showed that by not choosing to follow consider your morals when making decisions you become immoral.
I believe that through my two points I have shown that Idealism, compared to Pragmatism, better upholds my value of morality which in turn helps us to achieve other important values.
Hey if you have any comments please post I'm definately still an amatuer. And (I don't know if this is allowed) if you think of a contention that goes with my value and other contentions please let me know!! Any help is appreciated!!!!
God Bless
Swimmer Dude
