The Instigator
LR4N6FTW4EVA
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
gahbage
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

Hot button issue

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/10/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,520 times Debate No: 4963
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (12)
Votes (3)

 

LR4N6FTW4EVA

Pro

Basically what I want my challenger to do is to list three issues on our profiles that we disagree on. I will choose one, and we will debate.
gahbage

Con

Nuts! I thought I got to pick the issue. Oh well. I'll list the resolutions in a form that allows you to stay PRO, and me to stay CON.

1. The government should not create or provide social programs.

2. Patriotism should be encouraged and taught to children in schools.

3. The government should not provide welfare to the poor.

Your move, holy man. Choose wisely!
Debate Round No. 1
LR4N6FTW4EVA

Pro

Holy man?

Resolution 2 I guess.

Here's my argument:

It's simple, if you love your country, you'll do what's best for it. If you don't, then you are pretty much worthless as a citizen. Patriotism, defined as "love for or devotion to one's country" by the good men at Merriam-Webster is necessary for an effective country. If nobody cares about their country,, we will have mass apathy, and nothing will get done. Aristotle once wrote that in order for one to be a valuable citizen, you must get involved in the political mechanisms of your nation. Now, if no one cares about their country, either they will only be involved for power, which will just hurt everyone, or they won't get involved, and just stay home on Voting Day. An effective nation needs patriotism. We obviously want to be an effective nation, right?

Your move, heathen man...
gahbage

Con

It's from Dane Cook.

My opponent's argument rests on this quote: "Patriotism, defined as "love for or devotion to one's country" by the good men at Merriam-Webster is necessary for an effective country. If nobody cares about their country,, we will have mass apathy, and nothing will get done."

However, he misinterprets "love for or devotion" as "caring". You can care about something without loving or being devoted to it. Obviously, American citizens do care about the U.S. But they do not have to love or devote themselves to it.

"If you don't, then you are pretty much worthless as a citizen."

John is 18 and favors Barack Obama because he wants change in his country, so he votes for him. He doesn't particularly love the U.S., though, nor does he devote himself to its political affairs. Is he a worthless citizen?

Back to you.
Debate Round No. 2
LR4N6FTW4EVA

Pro

More MW definitions!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Devotion: the act of devoting, devoting meaning: giving over or directing effort to a cause

So, if someone does not have devotion to their respective country, then they will be a worthless citizen, I win.

Just to use more space to look cool, I'll refute your John example.

"John is 18 and favors Barack Obama because he wants change in his country, so he votes for him. He doesn't particularly love the U.S., though, nor does he devote himself to its political affairs. Is he a worthless citizen?"

First off, right off the bat we can tell John is a terrorist. He doesn't love the US. That means he hates us, that means he is a terrorist. Just kidding, obviously, I'm not stupid.

Really now, first, I will infer that he wants change for the better (although why is he supporting Obama? Anyways...). This means he wants good for his country. MW defines love as "affection based on benevolence" benevolence, the key term means "disposition to do good." Because John wants good for his country, he is loving his country, that's one part of patriotism. Also, you say he doesn't devote himself himself to political affairs. That means he doesn't vote. Therefore, if what you say is true, his love for his country is worthless, so yes, he is worthless. But, if you mean he isn't a politician, then you are simply misinterpreting me, and that means that John is devoted to his country, as seen through desire for good, and inferred action (voting) to try and bring about that good. In short, he is loving and devoting himself to his country, in his own little way. John here is actually a patriot, not a terrorist. If you think John is good, than I win.
gahbage

Con

"So, if someone does not have devotion to their respective country, then they will be a worthless citizen, I win."

This is based upon your earlier quote by Aristotle. And just because he said it, it's correct?

The rest of his argument stems from the line, "if no one cares about their country..." and like I said earlier you can care about your country without being patriotic. You can bet on the Superbowl; even if you don't love or devote yourself to it, you [most likely] care about the outcome.

My John example isn't really important and doesn't help anyone, so I'll let it die.

Despite my opponent's flawed argument, he failed to address the resolution:

"Patriotism should be encouraged and taught to children in schools."

I negate the resolution on the basis that these children will already be exposed to patriotism. They will have questions about presidents whenever they are mentioned, and they will ask their parents about voting. They will also learn about the history of their nation in school. They will learn what the U.S. stands for, and will agree with it. Patriotism does not need to be taught to children in school, because they will eventually stumble upon it themselves.
Debate Round No. 3
LR4N6FTW4EVA

Pro

First things first, I read the comments and I realized that I have not shown why it should be taught in schools. The fact is, if we don't teach it in schools, there is no guarantee that they will learn patriotism. Teaching it in schools is the most efficient way to spread the message.

Next, I will point out that my opponent has conceded his John example. He claims that it unimportant to his case, but what he fails to realize is that I made essential points in my refutation of the example. These include

"Really now, first, I will infer that he wants change for the better (although why is he supporting Obama? Anyways...). This means he wants good for his country. MW defines love as "affection based on benevolence" benevolence, the key term means "disposition to do good." Because John wants good for his country, he is loving his country, that's one part of patriotism."

There I show that anyone who wants good for our country is a patriot. Thus, a major point, that has been CONCEDED.

Another point I made was "John is devoted to his country, as seen through desire for good, and inferred action (voting) to try and bring about that good. In short, he is loving and devoting himself to his country, in his own little way. John here is actually a patriot, not a terrorist. If you think John is good, than I win."

Two points in here. First, I show that people who do the simple act of voting help our country, and are patriotic in doing so. Unless my opponent would like to contend that voting is bad, he has CONCEDED another essential point.

The second point in that quote is that if John is seen as good, then I win. In CONCEDING the John example, he shows that he views John as good, and also by CONCEDING the John example he CONCEDES that if he thinks John is good, I WIN. Thus, I WIN.

Now, moving on to his other points.

"This is based upon your earlier quote by Aristotle. And just because he said it, it's correct?"

He supports it logically, in the basic way I support patriotism. This means voting, and he supports it by saying that if we don't vote, we aren't helpful to our nation.

"The rest of his argument stems from the line, 'if no one cares about their country...' and like I said earlier you can care about your country without being patriotic. You can bet on the Superbowl; even if you don't love or devote yourself to it, you [most likely] care about the outcome."

This is different. The way you care about the Superbowl in this case is simply having an interest in knowing about the outcome, or having patriotism towards a favorite team. For example, I cared about the Superbowl between the Steelers and the Seahawks because I am a patriot for the Ravens, and I want the Steelers to fail as they are my enemies. So, in fact, it could be due to patriotism, or it could be curiosity in the outcome. Just because I go to cnn.com to find out about the Georgian war does not mean I care at all about Georgia. It only means I am interested in it.

"I negate the resolution on the basis that these children will already be exposed to patriotism. They will have questions about presidents whenever they are mentioned, and they will ask their parents about voting. They will also learn about the history of their nation in school. They will learn what the U.S. stands for, and will agree with it. Patriotism does not need to be taught to children in school, because they will eventually stumble upon it themselves."

My answer to this is that not teaching patriotism would mean not answering any of the questions that my opponent mentioned, and not teaching children what the US stands for. Basically my opponent is saying we shouldn't be doing something because we are already doing it. This is a CONTRADICTION.

Why I WIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1. My opponent CONCEDED two essential points.
2. My opponent CONCEDED the debate.
3. My opponent CONTRADICTED himself.
4. My opponent's points were based on misinterpretations of my argument.
5. I have REFUTED all of my opponent's arguments.
gahbage

Con

"There I show that anyone who wants good for our country is a patriot. Thus, a major point, that has been CONCEDED."

You established ONE part of patriotism. Not both. I got at the other part in my argument.

"Unless my opponent would like to contend that voting is bad, he has CONCEDED another essential point."

I contend that voting is not necessary. What if you don't like either candidate? Does that make you a bad citizen?

"In CONCEDING the John example, he shows that he views John as good..."

Did I say "concede"? No. Besides, I can think John is good for a different reason and it would have nothing to do with your argument. (Way to be vague)

"This means voting, and he supports it by saying that if we don't vote, we aren't helpful to our nation."

So the only helpful thing you can do for your nation is vote? I disagree. This makes Aristotle's quote false.

"Just because I go to cnn.com to find out about the Georgian war does not mean I care at all about Georgia. It only means I am interested in it."

From MW:
"Main Entry:
2care
Function:
verb
Inflected Form(s):
cared; car�ing
Date:
before 12th century

intransitive verb1 a: to feel trouble or anxiety b: to feel interest or concern "

Notice definition b; to feel interest is to care.

"My answer to this is that not teaching patriotism would mean not answering any of the questions that my opponent mentioned, and not teaching children what the US stands for."

I already answered this: "...they will ask their parents..."

"Basically my opponent is saying we shouldn't be doing something because we are already doing it. This is a CONTRADICTION."

You misinterpreted me. I said that we shouldn't teach patriotism in schools because those children are already exposed to patriotism. For example, if you have passed Algebra 1, why would you bother taking it again?

Furthermore, you can't define how patriotic each child will be; that is up to the child and his/her parents to decide.

For these reason a vote for CON is clear.
Debate Round No. 4
LR4N6FTW4EVA

Pro

"You established ONE part of patriotism. Not both. I got at the other part in my argument."

Patriotism: love for OR devotion to one's country

Only one part matters. So I win.

"I contend that voting is not necessary. What if you don't like either candidate? Does that make you a bad citizen?"

I was using voting as something that most people do. You can do other things to be helpful, but they are all patriotic. If you don't do anything then you are bad.

"So the only helpful thing you can do for your nation is vote? I disagree. This makes Aristotle's quote false."

First, just because you disagree, Aristotle is not proven wrong. Second, I was taking some liberties, I was again using voting as an easy example of patriotism. Aristotle just means having any beneficial association with politics, this is necessary.

"From MW:
"Main Entry:
2care
Function:
verb
Inflected Form(s):
cared; car�ing
Date:
before 12th century

intransitive verb1 a: to feel trouble or anxiety b: to feel interest or concern "

Notice definition b; to feel interest is to care."

That's caring, but it is passive caring. The kind of care I speak of is the second part of def 2, to be concerned about. If I am concerned about my country, I will help it, otherwise, I am worthless.

"I already answered this: '...they will ask their parents...'"

Okay, so if we take that model, then why bother teaching anything, why don't we just let the parents teach them? Exactly. Originally someone had to learn it in school, and we can't be sure they will pass it on anyways. To extend this point I provide the People's Republic of China. According to Philip Pan, expert on China, the reason they are so successful as a nation is because they have patriotism everyday in their lives. China could be considered one of the most patriotic nations ever. They are very successful. Since the resolution did not say the US, I will say that China should teach patriotism in schools, otherwise, the people will rebel, and chaos will ensue, which will make the Chinese a much weaker nation. China must teach patriotism or else they will fail as a nation.

"You misinterpreted me. I said that we shouldn't teach patriotism in schools because those children are already exposed to patriotism. For example, if you have passed Algebra 1, why would you bother taking it again?"

But the examples of their exposure come from, guess what, school. Not teaching patriotism would mean never saying anything about loving or devotion towards the US.

"Furthermore, you can't define how patriotic each child will be; that is up to the child and his/her parents to decide."

If you encourage it, they will most likely be more patriotic than not.

Why I WIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1. My opponent CONCEDED two essential points.
2. My opponent CONCEDED the debate.
3. My opponent CONTRADICTED himself.
4. My opponent's points were based on misinterpretations of my argument.
5. I have REFUTED all of my opponent's arguments.
gahbage

Con

"Patriotism: love for OR devotion to one's country

Only one part matters."

Okay, so devotion also matters. You haven't challenged my argument about devotion, so we're even...

"First, just because you disagree, Aristotle is not proven wrong."

Sorry for not explaining; "He supports it logically, in the basic way I support patriotism. This means voting, and he supports it by saying that if we don't vote, we aren't helpful to our nation." This quote suggests that you need to VOTE to be helpful, and that's why he's proven wrong.

"That's caring, but it is passive caring. The kind of care I speak of is the second part of def 2, to be concerned about. If I am concerned about my country, I will help it, otherwise, I am worthless."

"
Main Entry:
1in�ter�est Listen to the pronunciation of 1interest
Pronunciation:
\ˈin-t(ə-)rəst; ˈin-tə-ˌrest, -ˌtrest; ˈin-tərst\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English, probably alteration of earlier interesse, from Anglo-French & Medieval Latin; Anglo-French, from Medieval Latin, from Latin, to be between, make a difference, concern, from inter- + esse to be — more at is
Date:
15th century

5 a: a feeling that accompanies or causes special attention to an object or class of objects : concern"

To have interest is to be concerned. Face it, whatever word you are trying to use, is caring. It doesn't matter if it is active or passive.

"Okay, so if we take that model, then why bother teaching anything, why don't we just let the parents teach them?"

Because patriotism is not necessary to establish a stable living condition in America. School teaches subjects that are NECESSARY for CAREERS, and is meant to provide an education that prepares you for life.

"Since the resolution did not say the US, I will say that China should teach patriotism in schools, otherwise, the people will rebel, and chaos will ensue, which will make the Chinese a much weaker nation. China must teach patriotism or else they will fail as a nation."

It's too late to define the resolution. In round 3 I said:

"I negate the resolution on the basis that these children will already be exposed to patriotism. They will have questions about presidents whenever they are mentioned, and they will ask their parents about voting. They will also learn about the history of their nation in school. They will learn what the U.S. stands for, and will agree with it. Patriotism does not need to be taught to children in school, because they will eventually stumble upon it themselves."

Notice how I refer to "presidents", and even the U.S. specifically.

"But the examples of their exposure come from, guess what, school. Not teaching patriotism would mean never saying anything about loving or devotion towards the US."

Did you skip over my entire R3? I said that patriotism is exposed to children outside of school curriculum. Here are some examples:

- parent's ideas of patriotism
- asking questions ("What is voting?" "Who made our country?" etc.)
- American flags
- the Pledge to the Flag
- TV (the Olympics, the news, etc.)

To name a few.

"If you encourage it, they will most likely be more patriotic than not."

See above.

I have not conceded any essential points, have not contradicted myself, and have not misinterpreted my opponent's argument. On the contrary, my opponent has misinterpreted MY argument. I have refuted all of his points; vote CON.
Debate Round No. 5
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by yarnedia 8 years ago
yarnedia
I think there's a distinction between teaching and brainwashing. However, if that's what it takes...
Posted by LR4N6FTW4EVA 8 years ago
LR4N6FTW4EVA
Oh, and gahbage's final argument is politely called bulls**t, and impolitely called ******************************************************
Posted by LR4N6FTW4EVA 8 years ago
LR4N6FTW4EVA
If you brainwashed Jessica Alba, she might love you and be devoted to you. Therefore I recommend that you make like CHina and start brainwashing.
Posted by gahbage 8 years ago
gahbage
You're absolutely right. I said this in my R4:

"Furthermore, you can't define how patriotic each child will be; that is up to the child and his/her parents to decide."
Posted by yarnedia 8 years ago
yarnedia
A critical point was missed in this debate. You cannot teach love or devotion. What does a love and devotion test look like? If you can teach these, I would be sure to teach Jessica Alba to love me and devote herself to me. You guys are talking about teaching civics to children. Knowing how government works, presidents, etc. is civics not patriotism. Loving how your government works, devotion to it, is patriotism. You can't teach that.
Posted by gahbage 8 years ago
gahbage
Damn! I forgot to include an argument...
Posted by Sweatingjojo 8 years ago
Sweatingjojo
Gahbage got pwnd.
25 25 25 characters.
Posted by yarnedia 8 years ago
yarnedia
No, I'm happy to hear John is not a terrorist. I like John.
Posted by gahbage 8 years ago
gahbage
"I thought the question was whether or not patriotism should be taught in schools, not is patriotism good or bad."

Shhh, I was getting to that! >.<

And to your possible dismay, John is not a terrorist.
Posted by yarnedia 8 years ago
yarnedia
I think John may be a terrorist too.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by gahbage 8 years ago
gahbage
LR4N6FTW4EVAgahbageTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Puck 8 years ago
Puck
LR4N6FTW4EVAgahbageTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Sweatingjojo 8 years ago
Sweatingjojo
LR4N6FTW4EVAgahbageTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30