Idealism is better for the society than Pragmatism
All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.
After not so many votes...
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Four points
- Rating mode
- Characters per argument
Idealism: Idealism is the belief that we should adopt moral principles, even if they have negative effects on our lives
Pragmatism: Pragmatism, on the other hand, is a rejection of idealism. If the Idealist's principles get in the way, the Pragmatist does whatever is deemed as practical, with no concerns for morality.
Society:the aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community.
NOTE: In this debate contest will be only made on an individual level ,
PRO: how an individual resorting to idealism is benifitial to the society.
CON must take side of how on individual level a person being a pragmatist is helpful to the society.
- That pragmatism is accurately demonised for its flaws while idealism is wrongly held benevolent despite having more severe flaws.
- That in this very debate itself, Pro will be forced to battle Con in a pragmatic manner if he wants to win while Con will display first-hand how pragmatism is strategically superior for both a debater and society.
- That Pragmatism is based in reason while idealism is based in ignorance.
There is a common saying that goes by 'the ends justify the means' which is-----------ends can be truly horrific indeed.
I challenge my opponent to ------d to thrive.
When you look throughout history,------ idealistic.
While idealism is superior to pragmatism in terms ..... you can come up with for a society).
Pro is going to have to keep finding middle ground, ------ ones
Additionally, ............ the 'net-cons of idealism' and 'net-cons of pragmatism'.
When we appreciate this irony, ---------------other is 'less right' so to speak.
This is in itself fundamental to any exchange of opposing ideas ---------, given what they are engaging in.
My opponent brings up Nazism. Nazism was an example of idealism, .............. against the Axis.
It seems my opponent ................did benefit from his policies [https://www.wilsonquarterly.com/quarterly/summer-2009-thrift-the-double-edged-virtue/who-voted-for-hitler/]
When a society is idealistic, it is so naive and easily swayed that it merely takes one or two corrupt individuals who may or may not be pragmatic to come a long and manipulate them
While the corrupt leader ..................... except for Japan (which was an ally so geographically far away from him that it was not pragmatic to have invested so much into the alliance).
This same idealism of the poor was preyed upon by plenty of so-called 'Communist' regimes ........... Need I bring up how horrific the leaders such as Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were to their people?
1.CON tried to confuse rationalism and logical thinking with pragmatism.2.CON failed to respond to war crimes by Nazi Germany.3.CON failed to acknowledge PRO won the challenge by citing a pragmatist society ruled by a tyrant.4. CON failed to acknowledge PRO mentioned Indian non- violent freedom movement as example of an idealist society against tyranny.5.CON failed to counter even a single counter argument made by PRO.
- I did not confuse it for that, it literally is that. The key aspect of it that makes it distinct form logical reasoning is that the reasoning is applied with an end-goal of self-interest of each pragmatic individual of the society involved. For instance, if three people are stronger and there's only sufficient food for 3/4, a pragmatic endgame may be to mercifully kill the fourth person but it also could be to share the food in hopes that the weaker fourth person repays them later on and that the harmony of the group is a sufficient thing to keep stable for their psychological wellbeing. The idealistic endgame would be to share the food with each other regardless of how little there was. The difference becomes more apparent when you add people for the same amount of food or reduce the food for the same amount of people. Eventually you get to a stage where idealism would starve the entire society in the name of sharing or would need to allow pragmatic tyrants to secretly arrange events that seem like accidents to cull the population in order for the illusion of idealism to remain while the survivors don't starve. Pragmatism is more honest and indeed involves more logical reasoning.
- I did not fail to respond. Those were allowed because of an Idealistic society buying into Fascist propaganda. What do you want me to say more than that?
- I did 'fail to acknowledge' because Con did fail. The leaders were at times extremely pragmatic but the societies and average civilians were far too idealistic, hence the rise of these maniacs being rare and extreme in scenarios where idealism in society has become too high.
4. CON failed to acknowledge PRO mentioned Indian non- violent freedom movement as example of an idealist society against tyranny.
CON failed to counter even a single counter argument made by PRO.
Pragmatism is a philosophical tradition that – very broadly – understands knowing the world as inseparable from agency within it. This general idea has attracted a remarkably rich and at times contrary range of interpretations, including: that all philosophical concepts should be tested via scientific experimentation, that a claim is true if and only if it is useful (relatedly: if a philosophical theory does not contribute directly to social progress then it is not worth much), that experience consists in transacting with rather than representing nature, that articulate language rests on a deep bed of shared human practices that can never be fully ‘made explicit’.
... an idealist is someone who is not a realist, not a materialist, not a dogmatist, not an empiricist, and so on. Given the fact that many also want to distinguish between realism, materialism, dogmatism, and empiricism, it is obvious that thinking of the meaning of “idealism” as determined by what it is meant to be opposed to leads to further complexity and gives rise to the impression that underlying such characterizations lies some polemical intent.