Jordan, I'm confused, are you saying that you would like to see more value clash or that you would like to see more value debate framed in the concepts of ethics and morality?
I personally see nothing wrong with framing a value debate in terms of pragmatic arguments. I think you're trying to separate ethics from real world arguments when it is impossible to do. The real world implications and the ultimate feasibility/attainability of your core contentions should absolutely, I believe, factor in the decision the judge makes at the end of the round. I really don't see how we can successfully separate real-world implications for debates of ethics without exceeding the 45 minutes offered to us in every LD round.
If you mean that you'd just love to see more actual value clash and not see debaters debate ONLY about the feasibility of the value, then I wholeheartedly agree. Definition debates and example wars are fun for no one and addressing the examples but not the idea is a great way to lose a round. I think part of the problem, though, are the types of topics we have been given. For a topic so steeped in legalism like eminent domain or felon voting rights, I really don't see much diversity of ethical thought.
I'd love to be wrong, however.