Blind Patriotism Is Foolish
Debate Rounds (2)
This depends on your definition of 'patriotism'. Oxford dictionary defines 'patriotism' as such:
Patriotism - Noun
"The quality of being patriotic; vigorous support for one"s country:"
With this in mind, I believe that unwavering support and love for one's country is not foolish or a "waste of energy", but is in fact necessary for a functioning nation to exist. A nation, on a basic level, is a group of people, usually defined within a geographic parameter, who are organised to form a single State, with a Government serving all basic societal needs - defence, policing, justice, etc. Thus, patriotism is not "believing that your country is the best when no evidence exists" - that would be jingoism. Patriotism is love and support for the nation where you grew up in or now feel emotionally attached to by residence or ancestry.
"This is because I think that no country can be "the best," due to the fact that I do not believe countries are really anything other than arbitrary. "
You make two separate claims in this sentence, both of which I believe are incorrect.
First you say that no country can be "the best".
There have been many countries or empires throughout history that were by any objective standard "the best". They were the best because they out-did all other countries in everything - quality of life, business, wealth, military, etc. And of course when it comes down to it the final standard of any country's greatness will always be whether it wins battles or not. Think the Roman Empire at its height. Few would argue that the German tribes to the North of Roman Empire were on-par with Rome. If you measure a country's "greatness" by whether or not it is "arbitrary" then you have a very narrow definition; and a faulty one at that.
"due to the fact that I do not believe countries are really anything other than arbitrary. "
You are very wrong in this argument. Most nations evolved through a very long period of history and development; many having existed for thousands of years in some form or another. Great Britain has existed as a Kingdom for over one thousand years now, and has it's roots in the Roman Empire, giving it another few hundred years. In this way, the people of Great Britain are united by one linguistic, racial, and religious bond. It is the same throughout the Commonwealth (Australia, New Zealand, etc)
Of course, many nations are indeed arbitrary. Most in Africa had their borders drawn up hastily by Colonial powers, ignoring tribal and ethnic differences.
On Israel, you may be right in some ways, but the Nation of Israel has existed as a Jewish homeland for over 4,000 years and in that way it can be argued that it's existence is far from "arbitrary" - In fact, the Arabs today have less a claim to Israel than the Jews do because they made their way there by Islamic conquest.
jono.subz forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.