Ideological Diversity is not a Virtue

1A. The Principle of Explosion shows the absurdity of rejecting the Law of Noncontradixion, at least in this debate. Assume P and Not-P, a contradixion. P – given. Not-P – given P or “Voters should vote for ShabShoral” – disjunction introduction Not-P Therefore, “Voters should vote for ShabShoral.” Any conclusion can be reached through this method if one admits contradixions. Even disregarding this objection, if contradixions may exist, it is perfectly proper for me to claim that I deserve to win this debate, even if my opponent claims otherwise; I would only have to appeal to the fact that both a proposition and its negation may be true. 1B. There is nothing of value in either free will or determinism, separately, that is not in compatibilism (given my opponent’s scenario). The point is that to advocate free will or determinism separately, one must therefore advocate falsehoods (those parts of the theories which compatibilism excises), or de facto advocate compatibilism (which would mean that there is nothing full-stop in either which is not in compatibilism, making them… compatibilism). My opponent then says that “If we accepted one ideology as definitively correct while dismissing the other, we may not have reached a conclusion that marries aspects of the two.” This is totally irrelevant; if the correct conclusion is reached, then the diversity holds no value. My opponent is arguing on the basis that someone chooses the “One Ideology” wrongly; I am arguing for the superiority of the One Ideology whether it is found or not. 1D “Just because an ideology holds value to an individual doesn't mean that it is in fact true or good” I made no claim to the contrary. “Therefore diversity has merit. It allows the individual/group to assess various propositions.” This does not follow. If one is right, diversity only means that others must be wrong. My argument shows the preconditions for holding any ideology, and these preconditions exclude the judgement that pursuing a faulty ideology is good. I must reiterate that this is a metaethical truth: even if everyone on Earth is immoral by whatever standard, they cannot contradict the limits of morality in itself. I have shown that “Ideological diversity is a virtue” is equivalent to saying that “Faulty ideologies are desirable to hold”, and that this cannot truthfully be held by any if they know what it means. Someone may mistakenly advocate what this means in practice without formulating it in this way, and thus think that they are not contradicting themselves, but this only means that they have not made the proposition “Ideological diversity is a virtue” explicit (and thus my opponent is excluded from this category). It simply makes no sense to negate the resolution, and this senselessness transcends all particular moral systems. “#1 an individual can weigh the values of an ideology differently” See my refutation of 1C. “#2 the resolution is not necessarily referring to one specific individual.” Sure, but to negate it requires a specific proposition set forth by a specific individual who adheres to the a priori rules of action I have laid out. “Suppose one's goal is to pass the Bar exam. They could cheat and risk getting caught, or they can try passing on their own and risk failure. The goal is specified and yet what one ought to do is still a concern.” One would do that which leads to a state in which the exam is passed. Pragmatism is fully appropriate here. Regardless, my case, again, transcends all particular moral systems. It governs all. It has no need to prescribe anything, just limit systems. I fail to see how this affects my case. 2. I am only assuming that there is a goal, and, therefore, an ideology best fitted to actualise it. My opponent is arguing on purely pragmatic grounds, but I have not presented pragmatic arguments. My arguments are aimed at proving that One Ideology which is correct must stand alone, and must be strived towards at all points. The question of how to get to it is not ethical in nature, and the means are not “inherently valuable,” as my opponent claims: they are purely instrumental. And they are instrumental with an end in sight. That end is the negation of the means; the means are to be discarded and negated on the path to the One Ideology. Therefore, the resolution stands. “Pro's goal and value might be to establish truth, whereas my goal and value might be to pass time, sharpen my debate skills or have fun. The fact that Pro and I might disagree ideologically (as we are doing now in this debate) still has value, because it allows me to accomplish all 3 of those goals.” In this example, it is not ideological diversity that provides value. It is the argumentation. It is clear that my opponent cannot know whether I am playing devil’s advocate or being sincere – it doesn’t matter. Thus, my actual ideology doesn’t matter, and therefore value must be determined by something outside of my ideology and whether or not it’s different than my opponent’s. “In order for there to be value in negating diversity (value that Pro accepts does exist) then diversity needs to be present in the first place. Otherwise there is no scrutiny, no analysis and no gain at all.” Say that a plague renders millions on the brink of death. A cure is found and distributed, able to heal most who haven’t already passed. The curing of the disease is beneficial, but it is not the case that the disease itself deserves kudos for requiring it. Battling the disease is done to destroy the disease and enter a state where the disease is no more. The virtue is found in this eradication, not in the disease itself. Contextuality and Conclusion The argument my opponent accuses of attacking a strawman is presented here as a strawman itself. Her objection was implicitly dealt with already – if what is right changes, the scenario itself changes. The rightness is part of the concept of “scenario” I was using. My argument is unaffected. To advocate diversity for diversity’s sake is to elevate quantity without regard for any other quality. This is what I cannot accept. Many thanks to my opponent. I enjoyed this very much.