The Value Debate You Keep (Accidentally) Repeating
This is the beginning of a short series exploring one of the most common and potentially frustrating clashes in value debate. It has repeated itself in almost every value resolution and league since the beginning: the clash of pragmatism vs idealism.
Pragmatism holds that ideas should be evaluated based on their usefulness.
A pragmatist doesn’t care whether something is “technically” true. If acting on it produces bad results, it is false.
Idealism holds that ideas should be evaluated based on their essential nature.
An idealist doesn’t care about how people use or misuse something. All that matters is the idea itself.
There are other ways to think, but almost all value claims use one of these concepts. The problem: when debaters aren’t aware of this invisible clash, they’re not able to effectively refute opponents. This can make you feel like you’re stuck making the same kinds of arguments over and over. You’ll feel like you “won on the flow” and be baffled by how unpredictably judges respond to your case.
There are many common examples of this invisible conflict. Here are two from the current Stoa and NCFCA LD resolutions.
Resolved: Economic Stability > Economic Growth
Aff: Economic growth leads to child labor.
Neg: Child labor is not part of the essential nature of economic growth. Growth itself is technically good.
Aff: Okay, but it does lead to child labor though.
Neg: Okay, but I still win.
Aff: Actually, pretty sure I do.
Aff: Economic stability has no intrinsic downsides.
Neg: It slows down the process of pulling people out of poverty.
Aff: Not essentially. Stability is technically good for everyone, even and especially the poor.
Neg: Technically yes. But in practice, stability keeps people poor.
Aff: In practice, perhaps. But I still win.
Neg: But in practice, I win.
Resolved: People’s Right to Know > Candidate’s Right to Privacy
Aff: The people need to be empowered so they don’t elect bad politicians.
Neg: That’s nothing compared to the intrinsic worth of the human right to privacy.
Aff: But if we uphold that human right, we get terrible consequences.
Neg: It’s immoral to factor those consequences into the decision.
Aff: I feel like it’s not, though.
Neg: Pretty sure it is.
Sound familiar?
When one debater makes a pragmatic claim and the other gives an idealistic response, both claims are, from their perspectives, true.
That means that when you participate in this clash unwittingly, you’re losing control of the flow. You can no longer claim logical superiority; you can now only hope that your coherent position is more appealing to the judge.
Over the next few posts, we’ll do a deep dive into this conflict: where it comes from, ways to identify it, and how to win the next round that has it.
Thanks for reading. Check back soon for more.