The Instigator
Numidious
Con (against)
Losing
8 Points
The Contender
MouthWash
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points

Patriotism is Justifiable

Do you like this debate?NoYes+8
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
MouthWash
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/24/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,534 times Debate No: 25260
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (11)
Votes (4)

 

Numidious

Con

We shall use the following standard dictionary definitions...

Patriotism - "devoted love, support, and defense of one's country; national loyalty. "

The first round is for acceptance only. Debaters may not introduce new concepts during the last round, however, anything else is fair game. I shall be arguing that patriotism is not justifiable, my opponent shall be arguing that it is.

I look forward to an interesting debate. The limit is set to 6,000 characters because I do not have the time for any more.
MouthWash

Pro

I thank my opponent for providing this opportunity to debate what I feel is an important issue. He shall provide the opening argument.
Debate Round No. 1
Numidious

Con

I intend to show here that patriotism is not only unjustifiable, it is (and has been) detrimental to the progress of humanity. Frankly, it has caused (among other things) wars, land conflicts, and racism, to which it is directly connected. However, I shall begin on an a priori note - what is patriotism?

Patriotism is the supposition that the country into which you were born is better than other countries, and you should defend it for that reason. If all countries were equally good, then there would be no reason to favour your home country above them. This makes no sense, as no individual chooses the country into which they are born, or the race, for that matter, so to show pride in it is naive. Would you execute a serial killer's son because he is the son of a serial killer? No, but for some reason it is perfectly justified to kill an individual of another nation during a war, because they are part of that nation. Examples include not only the rape of Peking, but the destruction of Troy and countless other massacres both mythological and otherwise. Why did those Japanese soldiers murder and assault so many individuals in Peking? Because they were not Japanese. Therefore, it all boils down to patriotism.

Not only does one not choose the country into which one is born, one does not choose the government or society into which one is born. If you have no control (or very minimal control) over these, why pride in the fact that they are there? The government and society into which one is born is the same - you don't choose it, so it's foolish tobe proud of it.

Quite apart from the a priori fact that you do not choose the country into which you were born, patriotism has caused massive problems for humanity during the last several hundred years during which national patriotism can truly be said to have existed. Patriotism in the past was often intermingled with colonialism, and specifically the colonialist superiority complex. Early American colonialists were more likely to commit massacres against North American First Nations than British colonialists, this being because the American colonialists had the patriotic idea of manifest destiny, that suggested that America was exceptional in history and destined to conquer the entire world. Here are some massacres committed in the name of Manifest Destiny.

1868 - The Washita Massacre - General Custer attacks and slaughters a village of 140 sleeping Cheyenne warriors, killing approximately 75 women and children. Nothing provoked this attack except Manifest Destiny.

1872 - Skeleton Cave Massacre - 76 Yavapai men, women, and children killed in a cave in Arizona.

1890 - The Wounded Knee Massacre - US 7th Cavalry attack and kill 250 Sioux Men, Women, and Children because they would not move away to let American settlers in.

Patriotism not only was the root cause of Manifest Destiny, but also of various other similar ideas throughout history. The Romans believed that it was their destiny to rule the world (and all patriotic Romans, of course, had to believe this) and so they proceeded to do so with merciless massacres of populaces including the massacre at Alesia in 52 BCE, where Gallic villagers stuck between Roman walls (partially intended to keep defenders in and partially to keep attackers out) and the Gallic fort starved to death.

However, assuming that patriotism is somehow not responsible for various versions of Manifest Destiny in the Japanese, American, and Roman senses, it remains an idea that has no justification whatsoever.

Patriotism also is of great help to the ills of blindness and ignorance, which have caused so many problems in the past. Specifically, patriotism allows us to assume that our country is always right, even though this is often not the case, what this also allows us to do is to go along with the group rather than think for ourselves. This is especially evident when individuals who go against a war are accused of being "unpatriotic." This is ludicrous, because it assumes that that war is right for the country, when it may or may not be.

Patriotism also aids ignorance in that it creates tension between groups of individuals where it would not otherwise have been there. This is especially evident on both sides of the issue of immigration, where individuals, sometimes on both sides of the issue but mainly of the hosting nation, may even descend to violence.

- Serbian patriots (members of the "Black Hand" terrorist group) were responsible for the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand and the subsequent beginning of WWI, with all that that entailed for the future.

- Senator McCarthy backed his communist witch hunts with the idea that those hunted were "unpatriotic," leading to the deportation of many of America's greatest writers, actors, civil servants and thinkers, many of whom weren't even communist let alone affiliated with the USSR. (2)

- On the other side of the cold war, patriotism was appealed to by the USSR in various classrooms throughout Russia, where Soviet values were appealed to above all else.

Therefore, patriotism convinces one to "love one's country" even if that is not always, or even often not, the right thing to do. Was it right to be a patriotic German during the Third Reich and all the atrocities that Germany committed at that time? Is it right to be a patriotic North Korean despite mass famine, a police state, and countless other atrocities?

Even if patriotism, which is strictly defined as pride in one's country, is limited to only certain times when that country is doing right, how can one say for sure that that country is doing everything right, and why commit to the blind assumption that it is right to be proud of everything the country is doing? This sits on both sides of the political spectrum in many countries, including the US. Is it patriotic to pay your taxes? After all, that is part of the country that you are meant to be patriotic about - if paying your taxes isn't patriotic (as many Libertarians and others would tell you) then what is? After all, the taxation system is just as much a part of a nation as anything else.

Therefore we can conclude that patriotism hasn't merely been the excuse for countless instances of terror and evil in the world, it is not even correctly defined, and thus CAN BE APPLIED TO ANYTHING. This is very important in terms of the way patriotism has in the past been utilized by propaganda in various countries - Italian Fascist, Russian Soviet, American Corporate, and various other propaganda systems use and have used this term because, at the end of the day, it can be applied to anything, from torture to taxation, from markets to government manipulation of resources.

In conclusion, the fact that you were born in a certain country is nothing more than an accident of birth. Essentially, patriotism is very similar to ethnocentrism. If national flags had "white power" or "black power" written on them, they would be considered ethnocentric. However, because they represent a country, a set of borders, rather than a race, they seem to be justified, even though the conditions of being born as or in one or the other are identical in the fact that you have no control over them. At the end of the day, borders are merely artificial boundaries set to keep people apart and to make them despise one another for having the good or bad luck to be born in a certain country. To justify this by saying that your country is always right (as it must be to always be patriotic) is more than foolish. It has bred the kind of hate, lies, and propaganda that plague the world to this day.

Patriotism, and more broadly nationalism, are therefore frankly and absolutely unjustifiable.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
3. http://www.realussr.com...
MouthWash

Pro

I am grateful to Con for his argument. Unfortunately, it contains multiple problems.

---> L O V E - O F - O N E ' S - C O U N T R Y - I S - S U B J E C T I V E. <---

"Patriotism is the supposition that the country into which you were born is better than other countries, and you should defend it for that reason. If all countries were equally good, then there would be no reason to favour your home country above them."

I disagree with this explanation. To understand the cause of patriotism, one must first look into why there are countries in the first place. Geography, language, ethnicity and tradition all serve to divide humans into political entities that call themselves nations. There is a sociological concept called "structure," and to understand this, first think of basic tangible structures as examples. A molecule might be part of an apple, or a metal beam may be part of a building. They inherently belong to something else.

I argue that culture is the same way. Each person is influenced by their culture, and his language, beliefs, customs, and where he lives are all generated from it. He is "part" of the ethnocultural group in the same way a star is part of a galaxy. To reduce nations to mere collections of humans is utilizing part-ontology which states that the subject is the parts.

I anticipate arguments that humans have intelligence and can reason as to which culture is the more ethical without being biased towards our birth culture. This brings me to my main contention. (As we will see later, culture is not the be-all and end-all in terms of ethics or ideology.) To say that people are "judging" their own culture to be superior to others is absurd. Someone might love their home, and prefer it over another house, but the difference is that it is subjective. He does not judge his home to be somehow "superior" to any other place, but simply prefers it. America and Australia, for starters, are some of the most patriotic countries in the world [1. http://arminius1871.deviantart.com...] but both countries also happen to be some of the most tolerant [2. http://www.rankopedia.com...].

---> P A T R I O T I S M - I S - N O T - R A C I S M. <---

"Patriotism not only was the root cause of Manifest Destiny, but also of various other similar ideas throughout history. The Romans believed that it was their destiny to rule the world (and all patriotic Romans, of course, had to believe this) and so they proceeded to do so with merciless massacres of populaces including the massacre at Alesia in 52 BCE, where Gallic villagers stuck between Roman walls (partially intended to keep defenders in and partially to keep attackers out) and the Gallic fort starved to death."

The examples I have given in the first point prove that patriotism does not necessarily equal racism. Simply the fact that nations are no longer purely defined by ethnicity shows that progress has been made since the time of Rome. I don't feel that I have to respond to my opponent's arguments about colonialism, war, or racism unless he demonstrates that patriotism inevitably leads to them. If he does not, then bringing those examples up are quite irrelevant to the resolution.

---> P A T R I O T I S M - D O E S - N O T - N E C E S S I T A T E - A B S O L U T I S M. <---

"Serbian patriots (members of the "Black Hand" terrorist group) were responsible for the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand and the subsequent beginning of WWI, with all that that entailed for the future."

My opponent makes the association with causation fallacy when he provides examples of terrorism and other atrocities that were justified by patriotism. More enlightened or pacifistic people would likely not resort to terrorism to unify their country. Again, there is no direct, unvarying link between patriotism and terrorism. Con must prove that for this point to be valid that patriotism invariably causes terrorism.

"Senator McCarthy backed his communist witch hunts with the idea that those hunted were "unpatriotic," leading to the deportation of many of America's greatest writers, actors, civil servants and thinkers, many of whom weren't even communist let alone affiliated with the USSR."

This involves ideology and not necessarily patriotism. Fear of communism was not caused by patriotism but rather a strong abhorrence toward it as a concept. Simply because patriotism was used as a weapon against communism does not mean that it directly caused the anti-communist movement, much less the "witch-hunts" themselves.

"On the other side of the cold war, patriotism was appealed to by the USSR in various classrooms throughout Russia, where Soviet values were appealed to above all else.


Therefore, patriotism convinces one to "love one's country" even if that is not always, or even often not, the right thing to do. Was it right to be a patriotic German during the Third Reich and all the atrocities that Germany committed at that time? Is it right to be a patriotic North Korean despite mass famine, a police state, and countless other atrocities?"

Again, for these points to be valid my opponent must establish that patriotism necessarily leads to the extreme nationalism that was seen in those countries at the time rather than simply being used as a propoganda tool. Simply the fact this is not observed in all countries disproves this point.

"Even if patriotism, which is strictly defined as pride in one's country, is limited to only certain times when that country is doing right, how can one say for sure that that country is doing everything right, and why commit to the blind assumption that it is right to be proud of everything the country is doing?"

I'm not sure where Con is getting this viewpoint. Being patriotic does not necessarily mean believing that everything a country does is right. As I have shown, America is among the most patriotic countries in the world, but it is also sharply divided by politics. Conservatives, liberals, and libertarians all disagree on their fundamental worldviews and each group believes that it's own belief system can solve the current dilemmas or promote a more ethical society.

Don't take only America as an example- there are inumerable countries with their own unique cultures that still have internal disparities of values, ethics and politics. While patriotism may influence some of these beliefs, it does not control them entirely and certainly does not prevent a rational judgment of them. It could easily be argued that ideology itself creates more blindness and conflict than patriotism does. Thus, the resolution is affirmed.

I await my opponent's reply.
Debate Round No. 2
Numidious

Con

I appreciate my opponent's response, despite evident errors in his reasoning.

"Each person is influenced by their culture, and his language, beliefs, customs, and where he lives are all generated from it. He is "part" of the ethnocultural group in the same way a star is part of a galaxy. To reduce nations to mere collections of humans is utilizing part-ontology which states that the subject is the parts."

What my opponent fails to recognize here is that the statement "that the subject is the parts" is TRUE! Anything that is made up of separate individual parts IS them, otherwise it could not exist. As a matter of fact, a nation IS a collection of individuals, and should be treated as such. After all, boundaries are artificially created more often than not - this is most evident in the turmoil that central Africa has gone through in recent years concerning border disputes between tribes.

"He does not judge his home to be somehow "superior" to any other place, but simply prefers it. America and Australia, for starters, are some of the most patriotic countries in the world [1. http://arminius1871.deviantart.com......] but both countries also happen to be some of the most tolerant [2. http://www.rankopedia.com......]."

In preferring something one is certainly suggesting that it is superior. Let us take a parallel situation, in which an individual born into a white community "prefers" whites to blacks. Most of us would consider this racist, however, it is, according to my opponent, acceptable to "prefer" your own nation (that nation BEING the people of your nation) to others - why is this? I repeat - you do not choose where you are born any more than you choose to be dark or light of pigmentation. As for America and Australia being the most tolerant countries in the world, the exact graph was not shown. I can believe that they are the most patriotic, but tolerant of immigrants? Are there not paranoid Republicans who want to build a border fence with Mexico? Are there not stories of "boat people" being sent away from Australia with no supplies and starving in the process?

The examples I have given in the first point prove that patriotism does not necessarily equal racism. Simply the fact that nations are no longer purely defined by ethnicity shows that progress has been made since the time of Rome. I don't feel that I have to respond to my opponent's arguments about colonialism, war, or racism unless he demonstrates that patriotism inevitably leads to them. If he does not, then bringing those examples up are quite irrelevant to the resolution."

My opponent makes several errors here, the first, of course, is historical. Rome was certainly not defined by ethnicity - anyone could become a part of the Roman Empire (and later a full Roman citizen) and many did. In fact, many emperors were not even from Italy yet were capable of committing mass slaughter in the name of Rome - so have we made progress? I wonder. To say that I have to prove that patriotism "inevitably" leads to colonialism, war, or racism is like saying that I have to prove that Nazism inevitably leads to holocausts, or that material wealth inevitably leads to greed - it has, and that is what matters. The examples I gave are extremely relevant because there were few causes other than patriotism in Manifest Destiny, whereas in most historical conflicts there were many multiple causes.

"My opponent makes the association with causation fallacy when he provides examples of terrorism and other atrocities that were justified by patriotism. More enlightened or pacifistic people would likely not resort to terrorism to unify their country. Again, there is no direct, unvarying link between patriotism and terrorism. Con must prove that for this point to be valid that patriotism invariably causes terrorism."

Here, unfortunately, my opponent has made the same mistake - the idea that patriotism MUST lead to something for it to be incriminated. By this definition we should repeal all laws. Attempting to commit murder isn't ALWAYS successful, and racism can't be considered bad for being one of the causes of genocide because it doesn't ALWAYS result in genocide. Hell, maybe having a hereditary monarchy isn't so bad because hereditary monarchies CAN be good. Going back to Ancient Rome, maybe slavery wasn't bad because, after all, some slaves had really pleasant lives, even if many were thrown into the gutter after death.

"This involves ideology and not necessarily patriotism. Fear of communism was not caused by patriotism but rather a strong abhorrence toward it as a concept. Simply because patriotism was used as a weapon against communism does not mean that it directly caused the anti-communist movement, much less the "witch-hunts" themselves."

My opponent concedes here that "patriotism was used as a weapon" which goes back to what I mentioned earlier - that the idea in itself is capable of inciting to violence. If not, then why was it used?

"Again, for these points to be valid my opponent must establish that patriotism necessarily leads to the extreme nationalism that was seen in those countries at the time rather than simply being used as a propaganda tool. Simply the fact this is not observed in all countries disproves this point."

It is ludicrous to suggest that something must happen all the time or none of the time and that there is no in - between. Why do we have constitutions if democracy does not inevitably lead to chaos? This same thing could be said of greed - greed is not bad because it does not ALWAYS cause theft, even if it is one of the main factors. Incidentally virtually anything could get off the hook if my opponent was to have his way. I have already demonstrated that slavery, hereditary monarchy and the like are perfectly acceptable by my opponent's reasoning.

"I'm not sure where Con is getting this viewpoint. Being patriotic does not necessarily mean believing that everything a country does is right. As I have shown, America is among the most patriotic countries in the world, but it is also sharply divided by politics. Conservatives, liberals, and libertarians all disagree on their fundamental worldviews and each group believes that it's own belief system can solve the current dilemmas or promote a more ethical society."

What is patriotic, then, if not standing by one's country? If my opponent agrees with my statement that it is not always right to stand with one's country, then was it patriotic, for example, to be on the Soviet side in the cold war if one believes that it would benefit America to be Soviet controlled? In fact, what we have here is now a meaningless term. If love of one's country means maybe loving one's country sometimes, then means not loving one's country if it chose the wrong system, then you are no longer loving your country, and patriotism is reduced to a 10 letter word with no meaning.

"Don't take only America as an example- there are inumerable countries with their own unique cultures that still have internal disparities of values, ethics and politics. While patriotism may influence some of these beliefs, it does not control them entirely and certainly does not prevent a rational judgment of them. It could easily be argued that ideology itself creates more blindness and conflict than patriotism does. Thus, the resolution is affirmed."

Is patriotism not an ideology? Once more, if patriotism does not control one's beliefs, values, ethics etc. entirely then it cannot control them at all, as the two will inevitably conflict - see my above reasoning.

One additional argument - what if you were born in France, but grew up in Belgium - are you part of France, or are you part of Belgium? Should you be patriotic to France because it is where you were born, or Belgium because it is where you grew up? To say either is to reduce patriotism to a meaningless word.

Which, of course, it is.
MouthWash

Pro

I thank my opponent for his reply and will deconstruct his case.

---> P A T R I O T I S M - I S - S U B J E C T I V E. <---


"What my opponent fails to recognize here is that the statement "that the subject is the parts" is TRUE! Anything that is made up of separate individual parts IS them, otherwise it could not exist. As a matter of fact, a nation IS a collection of individuals, and should be treated as such."

My opponent now asserts that objects are equivalent to their parts. This is, unfortunately, a fundamentally flawed view. Consider a human being that had had all the connections between his atoms severed. According to my opponent's logic, he would still "exist" because the particles that made him up are still in existence. This can be applied to object or structure- a sword, a house, or a nation. Structure is irreducible to its components.

---> P A T R I O T I S M - I S - N O T - R A C I S M. <---

"In preferring something one is certainly suggesting that it is superior. Let us take a parallel situation, in which an individual born into a white community "prefers" whites to blacks. Most of us would consider this racist, however, it is, according to my opponent, acceptable to "prefer" your own nation (that nation BEING the people of your nation) to others - why is this?"

It isn't necessarily racist to "prefer" whites to blacks in the sense of preferring a lighter skin rather than a darker one. This is probably only applicable in real life to sexual preferences; in sexuality there are people who prefer whites and some who prefer blacks or Asians. It has been suggested that even in societies where outright racism is taboo (even in those which have egalitarian attitudes) an aversive racism still exists subconsciously due to herd mentality. However, there are some things that shouldn't be influenced by ethnicity, such as judgment of character or attributes.

Nations are the same way. I might prefer my American custom of walking inside homes with shoes, while the Japanese find it disrespectful. I am happy with my native language of English, but that doesn't make it superior to other languages. The idea of saying that American customs or culture are objectively superior to others is actually taboo in American society.

"Are there not paranoid Republicans who want to build a border fence with Mexico? Are there not stories of "boat people" being sent away from Australia with no supplies and starving in the process?"

Cultural assimiliation or demographic threat are very real possibilities. I'm not sure about Australia, but it is entirely possible that an influx of Mexicans into New Mexico or Arizona (which are already influenced by them, with Spanish being taught almost as a second language) may culturally and ethnically shift those regions and make them to view themselves as "Mexican" and see the USA as a foreign occupier. A movement for liberation might change the political boundaries of the region.

This is also seen in the disputed region of Northern Ireland. It makes sense that it should be a part of Ireland proper, but the dominant culture there is Scottish rather than Irish. It is inconcievable to view this as illogical because each person belongs to his or her ethnic or cultural group. It's an essential part of human nature.

"Rome was certainly not defined by ethnicity - anyone could become a part of the Roman Empire (and later a full Roman citizen) and many did."

"An empire is a state with politico-military dominion of populations who are culturally and ethnically distinct from the imperial ethnic group and its culture" [1. http://en.wikipedia.org...]. In other words, the ruling ethnicity controlled all of the other cultures comprising the empire. In the case of Rome, the imperial ethnicity was Italian. While non-Romans may have been granted citizenship, they were simply part of the state and not actually considered true-blooded "Romans."

For instance, a Numidian who had full citizenship might be treated equally under the law, but he would still be seen as a Numidian. We can understand this even today. A person of Japanese descent, who speaks only Japanese and understands only Japanese customs is not considered a Frenchman, even if he lives in France and has full citizenship.

---> P A T R I O T I S M - D O E S - N O T - N E C E S S I T A T E - A B S O L U T I S M. <---

"By this definition we should repeal all laws. Attempting to commit murder isn't ALWAYS successful, and racism can't be considered bad for being one of the causes of genocide because it doesn't ALWAYS result in genocide. Hell, maybe having a hereditary monarchy isn't so bad because hereditary monarchies CAN be good."

But murder would inevitably happen, and hereditary monarchies eventually result in abuse and ignorance. If we could, say, genetically engineer a more peaceful breed of humans (or simply educate this one out of ignorance) than perhaps such laws wouldn't even be necessary. If there was a some method that could maintaining the honesty and stability of a hereditary monarchy- then why not have one? I argue that if humans become peaceful or enlightened enough to avoid racism or war, then patriotism is most certainly justifiable. We are already on the path to this "enlightenment," seeing as racism is disappearing and war isn't a way of life anymore in most developed countries.

"My opponent concedes here that "patriotism was used as a weapon" which goes back to what I mentioned earlier - that the idea in itself is capable of inciting to violence. If not, then why was it used?"

Yes, the idea could incite violence, but the examples you cited were caused by ideological differences rather than patriotism itself.

"It is ludicrous to suggest that something must happen all the time or none of the time and that there is no in - between. Why do we have constitutions if democracy does not inevitably lead to chaos?"

That is not what I am suggesting at all. My point was that since ideological differences caused the problems, they do not require patriotism to exist. Patriotism can exist by itself without violence or ignorance, which mainly occurs under authoritarian regimes or with extreme nationalism.

"If my opponent agrees with my statement that it is not always right to stand with one's country, then was it patriotic, for example, to be on the Soviet side in the cold war if one believes that it would benefit America to be Soviet controlled?"

I'm not sure I understand the question. I could support my country without believing that it was justified in all of its wars or actions. Even more Conservatives, who are sterotyped as mindless patriots, are starting to oppose the war in Iraq [2. http://articles.cnn.com...].

"Is patriotism not an ideology?"

I was specifically referring to ethical or political ideologies. These can be influenced by culture, but again, many people ignore traditional conceptions of them and support others.

"Should you be patriotic to France because it is where you were born, or Belgium because it is where you grew up?"

You would have to weigh your ethnicity against your culture. Culture will almost always win. Even with extreme differences, such as a pure African growing up in England, the African would be assimilated into the culture and consider himself English. We observe this in modern African-Americans who are the descendents of slaves.
--------

I turn the debate over to Con.
Debate Round No. 3
Numidious

Con

I appreciate my opponent's responses. This is the final round.

"My opponent now asserts that objects are equivalent to their parts. Consider a human being that had had all the connections between his atoms severed. According to my opponent's logic, he would still "exist" because the particles that made him up are still in existence. This can be applied to object or structure- a sword, a house, or a nation. Structure is irreducible to its components."

Unfortunately my opponent's argument is what is fundamentally flawed here. A human, by definition, certainly DOES have connections between the particles that make up the human - otherwise, said human is a collection of particles and no longer a human at all! The human "exists" as the parts that make up that human, no more, no less, and the connections between those parts are parts in themselves. Connections are not somehow a - physical entities that exist in another reality, they are just a much a part of the human being as the particles that make up the atoms that make up the human being.

Regardless of the analogy, my opponent's argument remains flawed - if in the future all Canadians lived independently of one another or became self sufficient in some sense, they would remain part of the nation - state of Canada. They do not need to be "connected" in any sense to be part of a country, though they usually are.

"It isn't necessarily racist to "prefer" whites to blacks in the sense of preferring a lighter skin rather than a darker one. This is probably only applicable in real life to sexual preferences; in sexuality there are people who prefer whites and some who prefer blacks or Asians. It has been suggested that even in societies where outright racism is taboo (even in those which have egalitarian attitudes) an aversive racism still exists subconsciously due to herd mentality. However, there are some things that shouldn't be influenced by ethnicity, such as judgment of character or attributes."

Why "should" racial preferences have to be involved in sexuality? What my opponent is saying here is that there is MERIT in these racial preferences, otherwise they would be inconsequential to my opponent's argument. The question, then, is what merit? My opponent also seems to be justifying racism with the fact that it exists subconsciously in some parts of the world. My opponent says that there are "some things that shouldn't be influenced by ethnicity," presumably referring to human judgements, but why should ANYTHING of a person's character or mind be judged by ethnicity? My opponent here attempts to justify racism, but as my opponent himself has conceded racism (or "ethnic hatred") is apparently one of the main causes of the various conflicts I have mentioned!

"Nations are the same way. I might prefer my American custom of walking inside homes with shoes, while the Japanese find it disrespectful. I am happy with my native language of English, but that doesn't make it superior to other languages. The idea of saying that American customs or culture are objectively superior to others is actually taboo in American society.

But why must it be BETTER for you to prefer your own American custom of walking inside homes with shoes? Or to prefer English to Japanese if you know both?

"it is entirely possible that an influx of Mexicans into New Mexico or Arizona may culturally and ethnically shift those regions and make them to view themselves as "Mexican" and see the USA as a foreign occupier. A movement for liberation might change the political boundaries of the region."

My opponent is once more descending into two dimensional, them - and - us thinking, and interestingly it may be used against him from the other side - what if the Mexicans who immigrated to the US were not patriots, and thus saw no reason to change the border? Would that not be an argument against patriotism? But going back to my earlier point concerning the US, it is precisely the patriotic paranoia that says that fences must be built to stop a minor influx of immigrants from entering the country that causes conflicts like the wars between Mexico and the US in the 1800s - and my question is this, if my opponent believes that immigration is bad, does he support the American settlers who originally settled in Mexican lands (in the 1800s) and then claimed that they should be part of the US? And more importantly, why are they more justified in living in Arizona than the Mexicans who originally conquered it, or going back further, the First Nations who lived on it originally?

"This is also seen in the disputed region of Northern Ireland. It makes sense that it should be a part of Eire, but the dominant culture there is Scottish rather than Irish. It is inconceivable to view this as illogical because each person belongs to his or her ethnic or cultural group. It's a part of human nature."

The conflict in northern Ireland is more of a religious nature than an ethnic one, but once more my opponent makes a basic assumption - that somehow an individual must "belong" to a certain ethnic or cultural group, rather than be an individual. Counterculture and such have long disproven this concept. Also, in this example opponent has confused the cause with the result - surely it is patriotism towards Eire that has caused the northern Irish to want to secede? Surely it is patriotism to Britain that causes the northern Scots - Irish to want to remain part of Britain - otherwise, there would be no ethnic conflict, as there is none in other parts of the world where different ethnic groups are capable of thriving alongside one another. India is a perfect example of how different cultures are capable or coalescing peacefully.

"In the case of Rome, the imperial ethnicity was Italian. While non-Romans may have been granted citizenship, they were simply part of the state and not actually considered true-blooded "Romans."

My opponent confuses my previous statement, that a non - Italian would certainly be capable of being patriotic towards Rome and even committing mass slaughter in her name - with ethnic distinction. What my opponent seems to be saying here is that patriotism now only concerns one's own cultural and ethnic group, and the state is not involved at all, which completely undermines the original definition of the term! Therefore what my opponent is really saying is that patriotism works if you're personal identity, ethnicity, and language coalesces directly with everyone else in the state, and that otherwise (as, according to my opponent, in Rome) it is meaningless. Since nobody is exactly the same as everyone else, my opponent is basically claiming that patriotism is meaningless.

"But murder would inevitably happen, and hereditary monarchies eventually result in abuse and ignorance."

I can now use the same argument my opponent used against me, to similar effect. How do you know that murde would inevitably happen? Just as in terms of patriotism, one cannot be sure that racism would invariably happen. The same goes (and even more significantly) for hereditary monarchies. The country of Jordan is a perfect example of how hereditary monarchies do not necessarily invariably end in abuse and ignorance.

"That is not what I am suggesting at all. My point was that since ideological differences caused the problems, they do not require patriotism to exist."

Ideological differences caused the massacres of North American aboriginals? Of the Gauls?

"I could support my country without believing that it was justified in all of its wars or actions."

But what if it was not justified in any?

"I was specifically referring to ethical or political ideologies (rather than patriotism)."

Patriotism is ethical, otherwise we wouldn't be debating it!

"Ethnicity vs. Nation"

How can you be patriotic towards a country you weren't even born in? And what if you happened to prefer some of Dutch culture, but have no Dutch ancestry. Should you be a Dutch patriot then?
MouthWash

Pro

I intended to get a final reply up, but I'm going to have to forfeit due to extenuating circumstances. I apologize to my opponent and the readers who wanted a full conclusion to the debate. Please vote based on the arguments already made so as not to have wasted our time and effort.
Debate Round No. 4
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by fulltimestudent 4 years ago
fulltimestudent
Im sure patriotism can be justifiable ..so can quagmires, torture and murder. But that doest necessarily right. Taking pride in the place youre born is weak, lame and totally(and sadly) indoctrinated

I also completely with kjw--if people 'spiritual'..that is claiming to not be of this world ..if youre not of this world, you wont be prideful of having been born in a particular place
Posted by MouthWash 4 years ago
MouthWash
Yeah, it was Geo's. I don't really like it after using it, though.
Posted by Wallstreetatheist 4 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
Interesting format of your contention heading, ToothPaste.
Posted by Numidious 4 years ago
Numidious
Vote either way - people always vote how they believe anyways.
Posted by MouthWash 4 years ago
MouthWash
@Tonak22, please explain the reasoning behind your vote.
Posted by MouthWash 4 years ago
MouthWash
@kjw47, I wouldn't recommend voting on that.
Posted by kjw47 4 years ago
kjw47
Jesus said his followers would be no part of this world--and patriotism is apart of this world, in fact it will be the majority of mankinds demise-- at revelation 16-- it teaches that--- satan will mislead every kingdom( govt, armies, supporters to stand in opposition to God at Harmageddon-- patriotism will lead the majority( 99% of mankind) to stand on the wrong side. But satan with the 3 inspired expressions that are coming will make it look like the opposite is occurring.
Posted by Danielle 4 years ago
Danielle
I would like to read this debate-- someone please remind me to vote before the voting period ends if I forget.
Posted by Numidious 4 years ago
Numidious
It would seem so - thanks for an interesting debate. Some of my latter answers are brief due to lack of space, but I hope I got the gist of most of my points across.
Posted by MouthWash 4 years ago
MouthWash
This debate is surprisingly popular.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
NumidiousMouthWashTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Countering Tonak because I was asked to
Vote Placed by Tonak22 4 years ago
Tonak22
NumidiousMouthWashTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: It was a good debate. Good job guys
Vote Placed by Yep 4 years ago
Yep
NumidiousMouthWashTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro definitely won this debate off of philosophy and general logic, however that forfeit makes me give conduct to con.
Vote Placed by Mathaelthedestroyer 4 years ago
Mathaelthedestroyer
NumidiousMouthWashTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: This was a good debate. Even though pro didn't get a chance to summarize, I felt his arguments were better. He thoroughly refuted most of con's assertions by pointing out that things like racism aren't inherent in patriotism, therefore patriotism as a whole shouldn't be blamed. Both sides put up great arguments, though!