The Instigator
InsertNameHere
Con (against)
Winning
27 Points
The Contender
jonpistone2
Pro (for)
Losing
14 Points

Patriotism is a positive force to have in society.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 8 votes the winner is...
InsertNameHere
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/13/2010 Category: Society
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 11,967 times Debate No: 11736
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (8)

 

InsertNameHere

Con

I thank my opponent for providing this opportunity to debate. I look forward to interesting arguments! I'll be arguing that patriotism can lead to many negative things in society.

Patriotism: devoted love, support, and defense of one's country; national loyalty.
http://dictionary.reference.com...

Negative: lacking in constructiveness, helpfulness, optimism, cooperativeness, or the like.
http://dictionary.reference.com...

Now to my opponent... I look forward to an interesting first argument. :)
jonpistone2

Pro

Patriotism is the love for one's country. It is a positive action when people can express their love. It is also positive when people take pride in what they love. Those who take pride in their family, neighbor, environment, country, etc tend to take better care of such things and that is a benefit to all those involved. Without this pride for one's country, you run the risk of a disheveled structure of society. There are of course extremes to any issue and one can take patriotism too far and try to twist it around to justify evils in the world, but those rare exceptions are not what is being discussed here. At hand, the focus is on how one's love and pride for something, such as one's country, helps keep structure and a common goal of greatness for self and neighbor.
Debate Round No. 1
InsertNameHere

Con

I thank my opponent for an interesting opening statement. Now to begin...

My opponent mentions that while patriotism can be a good thing, he also talks about negative aspects of it. Patriotism can lead to unity between groups of people with a similar background within a country. Sometimes these bonds can become too strong that others are left out and racism/discrimination can occur. This, however, is aside from the main point I would like to bring up in this round.

Patriotism can be a negative force in other ways. One thing to consider is that we're all human. In reality, nobody is superior over anybody else as patriotism can sometimes teach. We are a global community and should be treated as such.

Second factor to consider is that colonialism. There are many countries that were created as a result of settling in somebody else's land. Technically these people moving in wouldn't be native citizens of the area so wouldn't it be silly to be proud of a nation that you don't actually belong to?

Thirdly, a person doesn't actually choose where they're born. They're born wherever their parents happen to be at the time. For example, if you're a German who is born and raised in a place like Japan it's not actually your country to be proud of. Patriotism is defined as being proud and loyal to one's own country, something that would be difficult for a German living in Japan.

Now to my opponent...
jonpistone2

Pro

The first thing that caught my attention was when my opponent said "people moving in wouldn't be native citizens of the area so wouldn't it be silly to be proud of a nation that you don't actually belong to?" and I cannot let this go unnoticed. People take pride in their most immediate environment and I find nothing silly about that. It's honorable to take pride in one's local community. While you should not show disrespect to foreign lands, a community thousands of miles away has no direct relation on your culture or way of life.

To argue that we are a global community is not as correct as some may think. It is true that we all share this wonderful planet earth, but that is nearly all we have in common. There are many different cultures across this great planet with many different beliefs. As long as these countries do not harm others, then they should be praised for their unique way of bonding and living and succeeding together. There should not be pressure that everyone change to a 'global' way of life or 'global' way of doing things. Rather, our world is great because there are so many diverse beliefs that people can choose to learn from and experience.

If a global community took place years ago, we would've miss out on so much culture and history and we would have too much uniformity. We shouldn't live in a place where Australia influenced Mexico and India had to worry about Brazil's interpretation before advancing their culture. Again, it is the pride in one's country that helps that culture to advance and survive. This is something to be proud of and a matter of survival. Not every single person in every country is going to have the same belief as the others, but the greatest common ground two citizens can find is love in one's country and that bond can translate into growth and success of not only the country and culture, but the individual as well.
Debate Round No. 2
InsertNameHere

Con

My opponent states that people take pride in their immediate environment. In some cases this could be true, but what about the destruction of these environments and of the locals in order to promote the culture of the new group moving in? This is one of many negative aspects of patriotism. Others can move into an area and destroy the local's way of life. A few examples include the Canadian Residential School system(http://en.wikipedia.org...), the relocation of natives in the United States(http://en.wikipedia.org...), and even modern Zionism calling for the expansion into Palestinian territory(http://en.wikipedia.org...). These have all been negative on the groups affected.

Secondly, my opponent argues that because there are different cultures around the world that they should not be together in a global community. However, bringing everybody would be beneficial. If people could learn to live together as one perhaps they could learn to better understand each other's cultural practices. There are many factors contributing to racism with ignorance being one of them. http://carlie1230.tripod.com...

Lastly, my opponent argues that if there was a global community years ago that there would be less culture. This can also be inaccurate in many ways. For example, the Ancient Greeks were very innovative in many areas. As people from other civilizations began exploring, eventually ending up in Greece they were able to pick up many of these ideas. Arabs were influenced by Greek science, Romans were influenced by Greek theology and philosophy. Even today in the modern world we still have influences from Greek philosophy affecting our daily lives. These advances were all about civilizations sharing different ideas with each other. If everybody was ultra-patriotic and hated everybody else, refusing to cooperate and do business with each other, it's likely that much of these ideas would have not spread.
jonpistone2

Pro

If people are "living together as one" as my opponent would like to see happen, then the individual loses their identity of self. Therefore we would not see people being more understanding of the wonderful diverse cultures around the world but rather a more aggressive and larger group forcing the minority to be in uniform with the majority.

Patriotism is an extremely selfless act. The isolated instances listed above by my opponent were not committed out of patriotism but rather for the expansion of one's own ego and wealth. Patriotism, on the other hand, is giving of one's self to better their country and the lives for those in their country. I can think of no better example of this than the Dutch solders who gave their lives in 1940 to defend their homeland from the Nazi armies. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) Even though they were outnumbered and the Nazi army invaded their land, they agreed the cost of their lives was a small price to pay in sustaining their culture for future generations and to avoid the global uniformity of the Nazi party.

I do agree it would be nice to live in such a world where evil did not exist, but that is not reality and it would be naive to believe such fallacy. There will always be extremists wishing to do harm to others and unless people have a common passion, as these Dutch shoulders did in the love of their country, the extremists will prevail. But just because some groups mask their evil with a blanket of patriotism does not mean, as my opponent argues, that all patriotic acts are evil. Quite the contrary, only a very few number of acts with such as false mask are actually evil. The vast majority of acts one does to save, protect or better their country are not done with malice intent.

Soldiers who are captured in times of war have every chance to give their captors privileged information to save themselves rather than their country. Time and time again we see soldiers be submitted to horrific torture and never disclose information to harm those in their countrymen. Acts such as these show the pride and honor that goes into having love for ones country. Would you want to live in a place where my army put self interest over the country's? I would surely not. I would rather live in a place, as mentioned above, where the Dutch citizens bonded together in protecting their way of life against the global uniformity of others.
Debate Round No. 3
InsertNameHere

Con

Thank you. Those are very intriguing arguments. :) This should be interesting...

First off, my opponent claims that if people are living together as one they'll lose their sense of identity. This rarely seems to be a problem in multi-cultural countries such as Canada. In fact, Canada actually tries to promote their multi-cultural identity. The Canadian Multi-cultural Act is a good example of this. http://www.solon.org...
Each cultural group is able to freely express themselves.

My opponent also claims patriotism to be a selfless act, using the example of Dutch Soldiers fighting against the Nazis. However, my opponent fails to address the fact that the atrocities committed by the Nazis were the result of extreme patriotism and nationalism towards the German "Aryan" race. Without this patriotism and nationalism the Dutch or the Jews or anybody else would have not made these sacrifices. There would have been no need to. The Nazis were expanding to make a German empire. This is patriotism in its most extreme form. Not to mention, this sense of national pride can lead to brutal ideologies such as fascism(http://en.wikipedia.org...).

Lastly, I acknowledge that soldiers are often captured in war as my opponent claims. However, many of these wars are often caused by extreme patriotism. For example, one could argue that the current wars in The Middle East are a result of patriotism. Both sides wish to protect their countries. The Middle Eastern Countries want less western influence, being proud of the way things are done in their countries while the US may want to expand their influence and remain a prosperous nation to keep the people patriotic. Neither side would want captured soldiers to reveal information as that could result in dominance by one group over another which could lead to further nationalism and more complications.

I look forward to my opponent's closing statements and I wish good luck to both of us! I also want to thank my opponent for this interesting debate.

Cheers!
jonpistone2

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for being such a class act during this debate and for starting such a wonderful topic. It has been my pleasure to participate in defense of patriotism and I look forward to many future debates with InsterNameHere and all the other honorable debaters on this page. For now though, I will finish this topic.

A bit of misinformation from my opponents last post needs to be cleared up. He wrote "My opponent also claims patriotism to be a selfless act, using the example of Dutch Soldiers fighting against the Nazis. However, my opponent fails to address the fact that the atrocities committed by the Nazis were the result of extreme patriotism and nationalism towards the German "Aryan" race" but that could not be further from the truth. I very clearly addressed this above by explaining there are a number of evil acts committed where a group is trying to globalize the world, make others conform and then mask this ego trip as an act of patriotism. That is not true patriotism. Nowhere in the definition above that my opponent posted at the start of this debate did it say anything about taking over other communities and that's because those acts are not patriotism. (http://dictionary.reference.com...) That is the act of extremists, as my opponent even admitted a few lines later by saying "in its most extreme form".

Just as we have to be sure to keep religion in the middle east and extremists who hide behind the religion. I find it essential that we keep a clear distinction between those who love their country and wish those well within its boarded versus those extremists who wish harm others. Patriotism, by definition, is love of one's country and the defense of one's country. The term patriotism says noting about being the aggressor or taking over others but rather the defense of one's country when outer forces wish to inflict harm or change their way of life. My opponent's entire contention is that patriotism turns into extremism but he fails to make such a direct connection.

Most would agree that people have the right to both love and defend their family and home. People would also agree that its wrong to attack another's family and home. But having the right to defend one's home is not the reason burglars commit crimes and break in to other's homes. The connection is simply not there and while some may work hard to make these two connect in a distant, more extreme way, it is nothing more than an exception to the rule rather than true practice of what makes each country a wonderful and unique place; patriotism.

Thank you for a wonderful debate my friend and I hope all who read these posts enjoy the wonderful points on both sides.
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
The problem with debates about patriotism is distinguishing the concept of "patriotism" from "blind nationalism." Patriotism is taking pride in and preserving the positive aspects of a national tradition. American patriotism does not require pride in slavery, it requires understanding the positive attributes that endure We may not all agree on exactly what those are, bu a patriot believes that there is something worth honoring and preserving. I think that aspect of the debate was about a draw, with maybe an edge to Con in suppressing the distinction.

The other aspect is group affinity. People are naturally social animals, and their survival depends upon working in a group. For a nation to succeed they must work together as a group at some level. Patriotism is the motivation to work as a group. I think Pro clearly won that aspect of the debate.

Overall arguments to Pro, other debate categories tied.
Posted by InsertNameHere 6 years ago
InsertNameHere
Wow, Servant_Of_God. Way to vote-bomb... Oh well.
Posted by jonpistone2 6 years ago
jonpistone2
okay great.....so what are we going to debate next?? haha :)
have anything in mind?
Posted by InsertNameHere 6 years ago
InsertNameHere
Yes, I really enjoyed this debate, one of my best. Thank you. :)
Posted by jonpistone2 6 years ago
jonpistone2
I am not sure what you mean....patriotism does not have negative consequences.
there are selfish/greedy people that try to disguise their efforts under the patriotism blanket. but this is an improper use of the term. patriotism is about defending one's country, not about attacking others. (read the definition provided by my opponent).....it is a comment misconception that patriotism equals taking over other countries but that could not be further from the truth...did you get a chance to read the debate?!?
I'm glad this debate has interest of others and once again I want to thank my opponent for such a classy and intellectual debate.
thanks for your comment belle!! :)
Posted by belle 6 years ago
belle
i am disheartened by pro's argument- if it has negative consequences then its not really patriotism its selfishness/greed/whatever. kind of destroys the whole purpose of having a debate about it.
Posted by jonpistone2 6 years ago
jonpistone2
thanks for stoping by wonderwoman....i hope you enjoy the debate and place your vote when it is finished. also, if you have any topics you would like to debate---please just send me a message! thanks
Posted by wonderwoman 6 years ago
wonderwoman
i agree with con at the start, lets see how this goes
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by Awed 6 years ago
Awed
InsertNameHerejonpistone2Tied
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 
Vote Placed by BeautifulDisaster 6 years ago
BeautifulDisaster
InsertNameHerejonpistone2Tied
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:70 
Vote Placed by resolutionsmasher 6 years ago
resolutionsmasher
InsertNameHerejonpistone2Tied
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 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
InsertNameHerejonpistone2Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Anacharsis 6 years ago
Anacharsis
InsertNameHerejonpistone2Tied
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:50 
Vote Placed by Servant_of_God 6 years ago
Servant_of_God
InsertNameHerejonpistone2Tied
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 Koopin 6 years ago
Koopin
InsertNameHerejonpistone2Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:51 
Vote Placed by atheistman 6 years ago
atheistman
InsertNameHerejonpistone2Tied
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:50