Instigator / Pro
Points: 0

Idealism is better for the society than Pragmatism

Voting

The participant who scores the most points is declared the winner

The voting period will end in:
00:00:00:00
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Philosophy
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender / Con
Points: 0
Description
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.
Round 1
Published:
PRO will wave first round and let CON make his case in favour of Pragmatism. 
Published:
There is nothing in the debate's description that suggests that Pro is waiving first Round while Con is waiving last Round. It doesn't even make sense as I am opposing the debate's resolved topic so I am on the equivalent of the black side of a chessboard, I am supposed to go second.

I am not going to waive the last Round, Con always deserves to rebuke Pro in the last Round of debating.

My case rests on three core principles:
  1. That pragmatism is accurately demonised for its flaws while idealism is wrongly held benevolent despite having more severe flaws.
  2. 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.
  3. That Pragmatism is based in reason while idealism is based in ignorance.

Principle 1: Idealism is wrongly held benevolent despite having more severe flaws than pragmatism.

There is a common saying that goes by 'the ends justify the means' which is used in order to refer to pragmatists justifying horrific damage to living beings, property and very devious tactics in order to get what they deem 'worthwhile'. Con admits that this is an accurate display of how harsh pragmatism can become but what Pro will avoid pointing out, that Con wishes to expose, is that idealism runs on 'the means justify the ends' and those ends can be truly horrific indeed.

When you look throughout history, while tyrants were generally pragmatic (thought a select few were idealists and perfect examples of how wrong it can go), the societies that enabled them to thrive were always idealistic. I challenge my opponent to bring up even one single society, let alone a general trend in societies, where it was the case that the society itself was pragmatic and a maniac-leader/tyrant was allowed to thrive.

Generally speaking, when people think about the ends more than the means and analyse things in a cynical manner, they are faster to spot threats, thus preventing things spiralling in a very wrong direction. When people think about the means more than the ends and analyse things in a hopeful manner, they are faster to spot benefits, thus helping them push through extremely tough times with a positive outlook.

While idealism is superior to pragmatism in terms of helping one have emotional tenacity in an extremely grim situation, pragmatism is what keeps people fro ending up in grim situations in the first place. Additionally, while idealism helps one emotionally in those situations it doesn't really help one get out of it since one needs to think like a pragmatist to take on a pragmatist (but this is not true if you take on an idealist and is why consistently it is the case that cunning and cynical people thrive while naive and hopeful people stay around the middle-to-bottom of any ranking system you can come up with for a society).

What idealism does is let you see good no matter what ends up happening. That can be good for your emotional health and some degree of idealism is important not just to avoid depression but also to understand people who make mistakes for the right reasons in terms of avoiding unthinkable 'means' to their ends. I am not sure exactly how my opponent sees idealism and pragmatism or what precisely he depicts the positive of it to be or negatives or pragmatism to be so I can't input more on this principle until I understand where my opponent is coming from on the matter.


Principle 2: 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.

Pro is going to have to keep finding middle ground, compromising on things he and I agree on about the negative of Idealism even, in order to then explain why Pragmatism has worse ones. Additionally, he is going to have to at times admit positives of Pragmatism and even good points I make in and of themselves, while asserting that Idealism has more positives and that his case's 'net-pros of idealism' outweigh the 'net-pros of pragmatism' and again will need to weigh this against the 'net-cons of idealism' and 'net-cons of pragmatism'.

When we appreciate this irony, that Pro will have to negoatiate with a side he is saying is evil and wrong, we understand that idealism is dysfunctional even in a debate. It simply is foolish to have hardline values that you never cross or question, while come hardline values and morals can and should exist it doesn't mean that we need to never consider and question them, it means we need to come up with pragmatic answers as to why those evils should never be done. Pragmatism encourages reasoning and sacrificing one's own 'rightness' to prove that the other is 'less right' so to speak. This is in itself fundamental to any exchange of opposing ideas (not just ideals, but ideas) and I assert that a society which is against compromise or debating ideas is a society of ignorance and irrationality that is simply not what any debater can assert is optimal, given what they are engaging in.

Princple 3: Pragmatism is based in reason while idealism is based in ignorance.

I covered this in my explanation of Principle 2.
Round 2
Published:


General rebuttal to all of CON's arguments: The topic uses the word "better", PRO only has to demonstrate that idealism is better than pragmatism, an individual can have both idealist and pragmatist views . CON must demonstrate how having more of a pragmatist approach helps, PRO will have to demonstrate how having a more idealistic approach helps. 


Principle 1: 
a.

There is a common saying that goes by 'the ends justify the means' which is-----------ends can be truly horrific indeed.
Please substantiate "horrific ends" with suitable examples and real life evidence. "The end justifies the means" led Germans to killed millions of Jewish people in holocaust and rape more than 10 million Russian women in their assault on USSR. The German command was well aware of war crimes in USSR, they turned a blind eye to them. The end result of this end justifies the means doctrine ultimately led to a horrible end only for the Germans. Without a moral code humans are worse than animals. 
b.

 I challenge my opponent to ------d to thrive.
Kuwait population under Saddam Hussein, small country, prosperous people, they were helpless and very " pragmatic" about their situation. The entire government and army deserted their people to suffer from the Iraqi invasion. It was not until the UN interfered was Saddam Hussein overthrown. Challenge won. Seed the point. 
c.

When you look throughout history,------ idealistic.
India(pre-independence): Thoroughly idealist society, pro non-violence only fighting for independence on moral principles, No matter how much British resorted to violence( their rule was tyrannical) they were overthrown. Idealist society does not let tyranny thrive. Tyranny thrives on pragmatism, pragmatists see it is impossible to challenge the mightiest colonial power and accept whatever harsh taxes are levied on them. Idealist strived for independence and equal rights. I live in a free country today because of Idealists not because of pragmatists. I will demonstrate more about this point in a later argument.

More examples: 
1. Martin Luther  King Jr.: Died fighting for his moral code for  equal rights in USA.
2. Nelson Mandela: Served 27 years in prison for advocacy against apartheid movement in South Africa. 

CON seem to indicate idealism harbour tyranny, PRO has demonstrated with examples and refuted his claims. 

d.
While idealism is superior to pragmatism in terms ..... you can come up with for a society).

Situations don't wait or are under control of any person on this earth. Corona Virus has ravaged the world, it is a grim situation, was it in anyone's control? Situations can be mitigated or assuaged but not controlled. One can mitigate the chance of damage by building cyclone shelter,never control a cyclone. Claim about grim situations refuted successfully. Chinese government let the wild animal industry grow instead of stopping it after covid 2002. Following the pragmatic approach , industry grew to 150 billion yuan. Corona virus was the gift of that industry. Reverse of what CON said is true, pragmatism and "practical" approach led to it. 
While they could have mitigated the chance of a second break by trying to control the industry. 

My opponent suggests idealist are naive and pragmatist are the only one with cunning, i.e, Idealist = Naive 
Pragmatists= Cunning and clever. 

 PRO has defined both the terms clearly, An idealist can be wise and prudent and tackle all hurdles or tricks of a shrewd regime(need not necessarily be a pragmatist) throws at him. PRO will demonstrate with  examples:- 

1.Gandhi's  Dandi March: Gandhi defying the salt law set up by British to charge tax on salt. 



What idealism does is let you see good no matter what ends up happening. That can be good for your emotional health and some degree of idealism is important not just to avoid depression but also to understand people who make mistakes for the right reasons in terms of avoiding unthinkable 'means' to their ends. I am not sure exactly how my opponent sees idealism and pragmatism or what precisely he depicts the positive of it to be or negatives or pragmatism to be so I can't input more on this principle until I understand where my opponent is coming from on the matter.

Principle 2: 
a.
Pro is going to have to keep finding middle ground, ------ ones
PRO needs to demonstrate idealism is better in overall regard to win, Compromising is an integral part of the world we live in there is no where is it written that idealist cannot be compromising. Compromise defies Idealism only when the morality is being compromised, not is any other case. Example:- Nelson Mandela on being released in 1990 agreed on  compromising and agreeing to a lot of terms with that current government of South Africa, but never on racial-inequality. He compromised and adjusted a lot in terms on economic policy which is fine even encouraged, as it promotes stability, but ask any commoner what was Nelson Mandela's moral code answer will always to promote racial equality, which he did.

b.
 Additionally, ............ the 'net-cons of idealism' and 'net-cons of pragmatism'.
This is like a loose definition of logical thinking and rationalism. Pragmatism is not equal to rationalism. 

When we appreciate this irony, ---------------other is 'less right' so to speak.
PRO considers himself to be an idealist, that does not mean he has to negotiate with a side and declare CON outright evil or wrong. As before mentioned PRO has to just sufficiently demonstrate Idealism is more effective than pragmatism, he does not have to degrade CON. There is no reason why two people dissenting on some issue can have a civil discourse without it turning into a mud slinging contest. It is simply not foolish to have hardline views, depends on the views: 
1. Slavery is bad. 
2.Paedophilia is bad. 
3.Child trafficking is bad. 
these can be termed as hardcore views, but are they bad? obviously not. Should they be questioned? No , absolutely not.  PRO makes his point clear depends on the view mostly. If CON agrees on the above 3 views and refuses to question them, he too is an idealist to some degree. 

This is in itself fundamental to any exchange of opposing ideas ---------, given what they are engaging in.
A society can have a civil discourse about economic policy surely, but that does not mean in any way that they cannot be idealist. Economics has nothing to do with morality.  A person can have a moral code that unnecessary killing is wrong and can be a vegan or vegetarian, yet be a fighter pilot and be engaged in war. Depends on the war. If he his country is being attacked, he has every right to defend his countrymen , his moral code has not being compromised even when he kills in defence. 

BOP

PRO's initial case is based on : 

1.Practicality: In search of what can be deemed as practical a pragmatist can ignore a great deal of injustice and still be not affected already highlighted by the war crimes and rapes German army committed (more than 10 million). German command just turned a blind eye. Without morality and an absolute moral command practicality also know no bound, one can convince himself of doing great evil and deem it practical, starts with small stuff like monetary embezzlement or tax fraud and goes on to rape and war crime as seen in German scenario. I will demonstrate how idealism is better with some examples: 

1. Rape of two underage girls by a Godmen Ram Rahim Singh: West is also no stranger to sexual offenses by Godmen, but this case caught my eye because this Godman had a huge following and those people had forgone all morality in blind faith, Investigating Officer was directly told while handing of the file, " close it without a probe", He refused to budge under political pressure. The case got attention only when another person journalist Ram Chander Chhatrapati was killed when he published letters of rape victims demanding justice when police were reluctant to budge. The journalist gave his life to see justice done. 

I am not demonizing pragmatism but surely a person who takes his well being knows how hard it is to godmen convicted, after all sexual offences convictions of Catholic Church are also pan-world. It can be safely said that the world is only a safe place because of a few journalists and officers across countries who refuse to budge under what can be deemed practical and what is impractical and are willing to suffer harm to see justice done. 

The most remarkable moments in history, are the ones deemed impractical by pragmatist, after all did not the New  York Times and Washington post took down the Nixon administration, one of the most powerful in the world when the watergate scandal broke out  without caring for politics and pressure. 

2.Activism:  Activism is a big no for any pragmatist, since activism involves self harm obviously when we advocate for rights and demonstate against govenments self-harm is inevitable. Case in point Hong Kong protests, that does not mean people should budge under oppressive regimes. PRO's all hopes and wishes for the people of Hong Kong in their fight against the new law curtailing their free speech. World is no stranger to activist being harmed in their fight against tyranny, if not for their ideals they could never have changed the world. 
Martin Luther King jr : shot dead
Gandhi : shot dead
Nelson Mandela : jailed 27 years of his life .


CONCLUSION: Having a mix of Idealism and pragmatism is good, but diving into pragmatism with no sense of morality and forgoing any thought of well-being of others invites tyranny and oppression. If not for the selfless activist and Human rights advocates around the world, whose ideals ignored self harm and served the society it would be far more oppressive and unjust world than the one we live in today.





Published:
My opponent brings up Nazism. Nazism was an example of idealism, where the people (as a society) were goaded into thinking that they should even snitch on their own family members and neighbours in the name of 'defending against leeches on society'. While this seems like the 'end justify the means', I want you to contemplate who voted for the Nazis when they ran (by that time Hitler had already unfairly become leader of the nation rather than Chancellor but that's not the point). Also, Hitler himself wasn't entirely pragmatic, he invaded Poland and idealistically decided it was a good idea to not share it with USSR simply out of principle that a Fascist regime ought to do that. It is also the same irrational idealism that led him to alienate Mussolini as time went along and resulted in Italy turncoating against the Axis.

It seems my opponent denies that Idealism has flaws, in fact he quotes me saying that while pragmatism is saying that the ends justify the means, that idealism is saying that the means (and how the means superficially appeal to you) justify the ends. The only example he could bring was one where the society was so idealistic that they even though an extremely right-wing Capitalist regime like Fascism was somehow a brand of Socialism (AKA National Socialism). It was the idealistic poor who voted for Hitler, only a small minority of his voters were the pragmatic Caucasian upper class who genuinely 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 has elements of pragmatism in them, Hitler and other such manic leaders certainly had elements of Idealism in them too. There is no way that you can say Hitler was entirely pragmatic, he lost the war due to how he had let the ideals of Nazism blind his strategy and alienate each and every ally he had 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 (though they hardly reflected the actual values of Marxist Communism, they were by name so). They, at least, had actual policies in place that did qualify them superficially to be 'Socialism' by name (whereas Fascism makes no sense to be called Socialism) but even then it was blind idealism that led the society towards the doom that came in the Cold War and the doom internally as well. Need I bring up how horrific the leaders such as Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were to their people?
Round 3
Published:
Well I am astounded to what degree my opponent hurls arguments  with no backing. 

Counters to previous arguments: 

My opponent brings up Nazism. Nazism was an example of idealism, .............. against the Axis.
Encyclopaedia Britannica:  In its intense nationalism, mass appeal, and dictatorial rule, Nazism shared many elements with Italian fascism. However, Nazism was far more extreme both in its ideas and in its practice. In almost every respect it was an anti-intellectual and atheoretical movement, emphasizing the will of the charismatic dictator as the sole source of inspiration of a people and a nation, as well as a vision of annihilation of all enemies of the Aryan Volk as the one and only goal of Nazi policy.
                                     The tradition of political romanticism, with its sharp hostility to rationalism and to the principles underlying the French Revolution, its emphasis on instinct and the past, and its proclamation of the rights of Friedrich Nietzsche’s exceptional individual (the Übermensch [“Superman”]) over all universal law and rules. 
Some historical corrections are needed: 
1. Hitler only succeeded in capturing Poland because USSR was on its Hitler's side, the Polish army was able to ward of Hitler's initial advances, they only lost because they got pinned from a two frontal attack, the army simply could not fight at two fronts.
2.After winning Poland he drugged it's entire army with crystal-meth, which enabled them to fight day and night without stopping, such a wild fighting capability stunned both British and the French, which led to French surrender and British evacuation. 

Did Nazism was ideological?yes. Does having an ideology equates to one being called an idealist ? certainly not. If we are equating to what is historically documented as Political romanticism as idealism then it might as well be the end of logical reasoning as we know it. 
There is no morality in any of the actions of the Nazi regime,for benefit of CON lets revise the definition of idealism 

 Idealism is the belief that we should adopt moral principles, even if they have negative effects on our lives

The point PRO want to put across is simple CON must stop equating every atheoretical/ insane/gruesome act with idealism. That too with no sourcing. 

Redundant answer and I am genuinely stunned,by the approach taken by CON to equate nazism as idealism. The source too only discusses a degree to which voting pattern changed that too mostly with economic factors in mind. Since idealism is based on morality , source although can be referred to as correct has no pertinence to the given discussion. 

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
Indian freedom movement was idealist and based on Non- violence, neither was it naive nor was swayed by British taking huge counter measures to stop it. Their divide and rule policy is still frowned upon, caused communal violence and hatred among religions in India to spread, effects of which can be still seen today. Trying to divide freedom fighters on communal grunds equates to manipulation, but we can see British failed. CON must substantiate his claims with examples and sources. 
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).
I think only one reason was there for Hitler to lose a war, he thought of himself as a military genius but he was a military fool. 
Refused to evacuate his troops from the battle of Stalingrad. 
Bragged about his air-force when his army could have easily slaughtered all the British troops at Dunkirk. 
Seriously faults in Normandy invasion by the German high command and reinforcements did not reach on time. 
When the allied forces attacked, Hitler was sleeping and 3 panzer divisions under him could not move to reinforce because, no one wanted to wake him up!  
Moreover the German commander Rommel (man responsible for the pacific wall) was in Berlin celebrating his wife's birthday on the day of the attack! 

No clear leadership, stupidity and national romanticism led Germans to lose the war, the lists of military blunders goes on and on but I think I have made my point.

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?
I think all CON is doing is trying to confuse the audience because he does not have a genuine point to highlight. Communism? Capitalism what has that got to do with pragmatism and idealism? 
How is economics being related to this discussion, CON must establish that. Communist countries did numerous war crimes, slaughtered millions Stalin and Mao are good examples, by the definition of Idealism itself? How is Communism and Idealism related? 


Build up of pervious arguments: PRO has already established that idealism is far better than pragmatism if we consider justice systems and activism as examples. PRO has further made his case by refuting all previously held arguments by CON. CON has ceded all those arguments by lack of response. 
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.

Forfeited
Round 4
Published:
CON fails to clarify his stance all arguments carried forward. 
Published:
I don't see evidence by Pro of anything he is saying (even when he literally links a URL it doesn't seem to support what he's saying). A pragmatic society would not have wanted to work with Hitler in the first place, nor aimed for Communism in Russia. Pure pragmatism means that if Jews happen to be elite in Germany or the Aristocracy of Russia happens to be in charge, you just let it be and work around it. Instead, thanks to the idealism of society, these people were able to dupe enough people into thinking they should throw away their own rationality and concern for their own interests in order to pursue an idealistic goal of fighting the authority in the name of a new 'better'... ideal one (whether it be Fascist, Communist, anarchist you name it).

Pro is listing bullet pointed lists at the bottom of his Rounds to apparently 'lay out' how he's supposedly won this debate. I am sorry but he is not doing so, he's lying to you and is laying out literal falsehoods to make you think it happened in the debate. That is quite pragmatic of him, if you ask me, but I ask you as a voter to also be pragmatic in order to resist falling victim to his cunning ways. 

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.
Pro, Round 2.

  1. 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.
  2. 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?
  3. 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. 
Good job, you also mentioned MLK Jr. what would MLK Jr. be without Malcolm X? Who would listen to him if they didn't have a more pragmatic counterpart to fear? All you showed is that idealism and pragmatism can work well together, making the idealist get listened to while the pragmatist does the dirty work.

CON failed to counter even a single counter argument made by PRO.
LOL, just plain lies. 


With that out of the way, let's address that issue of me 'confusing' rationalism for pragmatism.

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’.

Pragmatism is rooted in scientific theory being applied to political decisions and even very complex, emotionally-triggering ethical dilemmas. The pragmatist would, for instance, argue that even saying 'murder is always wrong' is merely a convenience enabled by the fact that 'murder' is unlawful killing while lawful killing has been a necessity to keep nations safe from each other and even threats within for millennia (think CIA, not just army, navy and airforce). Pragmatists find idealists to be asinine when the latter have 'unbreakable ethical values' that they see as so extremely important they will ignore any kind of negotiation and remove all room for compromise. Similarly, Idealists find pragmatists to be vile when the latter starts to do very abhorrent things in the name of a Just endgame.

... 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.

While this makes idealists seem like the more flexible thinkers, they also are the ones more prone to go to extreme lengths in the name of that which they deem worth being flexible for. This is the very basis on which I said that greater horrors are done in the name of Idealism than in the name of Pragmatism. While very cunning and efficient tyrants that rule societies often have to be pragmatic, it is the society's idealism that lets them so easily be victimised as they fail to resist the pragmatic application of persuasive tactics, intimidation and much else that the rising leaders use. For a group who has a morally good goal to defeat a pragmatic tyrant, they need to themselves be pragmatic or they will never stand a chance and may even end up falling for the charm of the pragmatist and doing the bidding of the villain that they end up seeing as a hero, since the villain will fit what they say and do to help them appear as the good guy.

In Pro's debate, he keeps saying that idealism is better because there are examples in history of 'good people doing good while being idealistic'. The issue is that they only could do that when pragmatists were doing dirty work to force the authorities and society to end up rooting for the idealist. Do you think people would have listened to Gandhi so much had he not been the rich son of an extremely influential nearly king-status father? https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/india/9840076/The-truth-about-Mahatma-Gandhi-he-was-a-wily-operator-not-Indias-smiling-saint.html

You can find me an Idealist and I will show you either a pragmatist or someone who was only allowed the privilege to stay idealistic as pragmatists did bidding on their behalf. You don't get to defeat a Machiavellian type by being a saintly, idealistic society. Instead, by being cynical and keeping your deductive reasoning on constant alert, you'll find it much harder for a leader to reel you in with persuasive rhetoric and much easier for you as a society to fight back with your own means.
Round 5
Forfeited
Published:
Basically a concession.
Added:
--> @Nikunj_sanghai
No thanks but thank you for the offer.
#2
Added:
--> @oromagi
Interested?
Instigator
#1
No votes yet