The Instigator
Con (against)
4 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
3 Points

Patriotism is a virtue

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/15/2011 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 7,677 times Debate No: 19900
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (20)
Votes (2)




As Con, I will argue against the proposition that patriotism is a virtue. Pro must agree with the following definitions that will frame the debate:

Patriotism (noun): "Love of and devotion to one's country." [1]

Virtue (noun): "An example or kind of moral excellence." (emphasis added) [2]

I want to emphasize that I intend for this to be a philosophical debate over the normative merits of patriotism. In other words, it will not be enough for Pro to defend patriotism as a necessary evil or a useful tool for promoting other goals; Pro must argue that patriotism itself is morally praiseworthy. As the vast majority of Americans simply take this for granted, I don't think the terms of this debate are too demanding for Pro to accept.

Round 1 is for acceptance only. I look forward to debating an intelligent, patriotic opponent!



Sure. I'll accept. Good luck!
Debate Round No. 1


Today, Americans take it for granted that patriotism is a virtue. Americans are so patriotic that even a politician’s failure to wear an American flag lapel pin [1] or stand correctly during a rendition of the national anthem [2] can be controversial. Questioning the patriotism of an opponent is (rightfully) viewed with scorn, but nobody ever disputes the underlying premise that patriotism itself is important. In other words, nobody questions whether loving your country is really such a healthy emotion.

I submit that patriotism is not a virtue. At best, patriotism is an irrational sentiment that serves no intrinsic moral purpose. At worst, patriotism is a form of political indoctrination capable of motivating tremendous carnage and destruction. Accordingly, it is time that human beings recognize and reject patriotism for the parochial propaganda it is.

1. Patriotism is unnatural

Sociologist Benedict Anderson once famously observed that coutries are “imagined communities,” in the sense that the members of a country never personally meet the vast majority of their compatriots. [3] Unless a country has observable geographic borders, it is hard to tell that a country physically exist at all.

Given the abstracted nature of countries, it is clear that patriotism can only be learned as a result of social indoctrination. Unlike the affection a child feels for her mother, for example, patriotism is not natural or innate. It takes a constant exposure to nationalist propaganda and mythology before a person genuinely loves an entity he cannot readily observe. Much like religion, "patriotism . . . is a superstition created and maintained through a network of lies and falsehoods." [4]

Love, however, is an emotion best reserved for relationships between actual human beings. As E.M Forster once wrote, "[i]f there ever comes a time when I must choose between betraying my country or my friend, I hope I shall have the courage to betray my country." [5]

2. Patriotism is arbitrary

The vast majority of people on Earth do not choose their national identity; nationality is a characteristic most often inherited through the accidental circumstances of birth. It is a mystery, then, why so many non-immigrants are so fiercely proud of an identity they really had no control over.

To the extent that a patriot claims to love his country because of its values or accomplishments, there are other countries in the world that share similar values and accomplishments. Rather, most people feel patriotic about their country is simply because it is their country. While parochial nostalgia may be a more tolerable explanation of patriotism than a conceited belief in national superiority, patriotism "because my country is mine" is still morally irrelevant.

3. Patriotism minimizes national shortcomings

Ceremonial expressions of patriotism gloss over national shortcomings. For example, Southernors who defend the Confederate flag as a symbol of "heritage" ignore the fact that the flag also represents a (former) country established precisely to maintain a system of human slavery. Similarly, Americans who interpret the American flag as a symbol of national glory tend to ignore the fact that many atrocities were committed in the name of the United States, including the genocidal displacement of indigenous Native Americans [6] or the deliberate incineration of thousands of Japanese civilians. [7]

To their credit, the people of Germany have acknowledged the evils committed in the name of their nation during World War II, and have accordingly made public expressions of patriotism taboo. [8] Germany's sober skepticism of all patriotic pomp and circumstance is an example worth following.

4. Patriotism distracts people from their common humanity

Perhaps most importantly, patriotism distracts people from their foremost identity as human beings. By dividing the word into finite political communities competing against one another for prestige and influence, patriotism and the principle of national sovereignty provokes unnecessary disputes and drives people to war. In fact, patriotism is responsible for more death and human suffering than all other religions or political ideologies combined.

This madness must end. We human beings live in an increasingly interconnected planet, and it is time we recognized national boundaries and the patriotism that sustains them as irrational and destructive relics of our barbaric ancestors.

Patriotism is NOT a virtue.


[3] Benedict Anderson. Imagined Communities (1991)
[4] Emma Goldman. Patriotism: A Menace to Liberty (1910)


My opponent presents some interesting facts and opinions about patriotism. However, what is missing from his argument is what this has to do with the resolution. Why do these statements, if true, preclude patriotism from being a virtue?

Must virtures be natural?
Must virtures be non-arbitrary?
Must virtures acknowledge shortcomings?
Must virtures place common humanity above all else?

Perhaps. If so, my opponent has not demonstrated this. Without demonstrating this, his argument is only half complete.

Specific Rebuttals:

R1. Patriotism is unnatural

My opponent claims that patriotism is unnatural because it must be taught and because its target is an abstract entity. Why are these things "unnatural?" These are things that part of what makes us distinctly human: traits selected through the natural process of evolution that convey a distinct survival advantage.

The fact that we have separated our collective knowledge from our biology is still a natural expression of our biology. Likewise our propensity toward abstraction. The very nature of language is to address abstract concepts which may not physically exist.

If patriotism is unnatural, then whence it came? Either it arose naturally through the history of mankind or it was imposed on us from some external source. If the latter, then what was that source?

R2. Patriotism is Arbitrary

This claim is easily dismissed. While we may argue about the nature of morality, morals exist in the sense that there are behaviors which we call "moral." None of these were decided by choice. Rather they correspond to individual instincts and social norms. All morals are "arbitrary" in this sense.

R3. Patriotism minimizes national shortcomings

The claims here are made baseless. While we don't call attention to, on a daily basis, the shortcomings of our country, on what basis do we say that they are ignored? They are ignored, probably, because they are history. People are mostly concerned with present and future concerns. Most importantly, my opponent has failed to show a causal connection, or even a correlation, between patriotism and ignoring these things.

R4. Patriotism distracts people from their common humanity

Here, my opponent gets causality mixed. He states: "By dividing the [world] into finite political communites competing against one another for prestige and influence, patriostim and the principle of national sovereignty provokes unnecessary disputes and drives people to war."

Patriotism doesn't politically divide the world, the political divisions of the world result in patriotism. How can love of the country precede the country?


Patriotism is love of country. A country is, in part, a community of individuals united by some aspect. Communities are larger abstractions of the family unit. Thus, patriotism is an extension of familial love. Is not familial love praiseworthy? It is a fundamental component of being a social species.

We are biologically wired to have an affinity toward groups to which we are related, either biologically or socially. This conveys a distinct survival advantage. Since morals are behaviors which we deem good, in the sense that the are beneficial, and since patriotism is an expression of such a behavior, patriotism is morally praiseworthy: a virture.
Debate Round No. 2


Before I engage my opponent’s argument, I would like to emphasize that the burden of proof in this debate is equally shared. It is not enough for the “Pro” of this debate’s resolution to merely rebut my “Con” arguments as non-preclusive; he must make an affirmative case of his own that explains why the resolution is true. Given the brevity of my opponent’s concluding “argument” section in the previous round, he may be operating under a mistaken assumption about the burden of proof.

Having addressed the issue of proof, I will now turn to my opponent’s (extremely brief) argument in support of the resolution.

Rebuttal: Patriotism does not convey a survival advantage.

My opponent deems patriotism a virtue in the sense that it “conveys a distinct survival advantage.” Nothing, however, could be further from the truth. A cursory knowledge of 20th century world history demonstrates emphatically that patriotism is perhaps the deadliest ideology ever invented. If anything, patriotism conveys a distinct threat to human existence, both individually and collectively as a species.

World Wars I and II provide irrefutable evidence of the explosive danger posed by patriotism. World War I formally began with the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria by the Black Hand, a "Serbian nationalist secret society." [1] Ferdinand's actual assassin, Gavrilo Princip, later admitted during his trial that he was a "Yugoslav nationalist" who intended to liberate Serbian territory governed by the Austro-Hungarian empire "by means of terror." [2] Of course, Serbian nationalism wasn't just to blame for causing of World War II; Germany's militant patriotism was also a principal culprit. [3] Later, a patriotic "hatred" on all sides of the conflict sustained the war, [4], even resulting in the lynching of a German-American man gagged with an American flag. [5] Alltogether, 15 million people were killed in World War I. [6]

If World War I was bad, World War II was even worse. As a result of raging patriotic fervor within Germany, Italy and Japan, a total hell on Earth was unleashed, resulting in the deaths of over 60 million people. [7] Patriotism clearly fueled much of this bloodshed. As Nazi figure Herman Goering remarked later at Nuremburg:

"Naturally, the common people don't want war... But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine policy, and its always a simple matter to drag people along... That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism... it works the same way in any country." [8]

World Wars I and II are only two of the most prominent examples of the death and suffering caused by patriotism, as almost all wars are in some respects motivated by patriotism. Given this inescapable historical fact, it comes as no surprise that many towering anti-war activists and intellectuals - including Ghandi [9], Martin Luther King Jr. [10], Bertrand Russell [11], Noam Chomsky [12], and several Roman Catholic Popes [13, 14] - have voiced their support for the creation of a world government to promote the interests of all humanity. In the words of John Lennon, a world without national borders and patriotism would be a world “with nothing to kill or die for.” [15]

In the space I have remaining, I would like to briefly return to my original arguments and give some specific responses to my opponent’s counterarguments.

1. Patriotism is unnatural

In his rebuttal to this point, my opponent stated that patriotism “either . . . arose naturally through the history of mankind, or it was imposed upon us from some external source.” This, of course, is a false dichotomy, premised on a ludicrously expansive definition of the word “natural.” According to my opponent, any product of human history (unless, presumably, it was “imposed on us” by aliens) may be characterized as “natural.” Air conditioning is “natural,” skycrapers are “natural,” even abstracted creeds and ideologies like patriotism or scientology are “natural" (unless scientology really does have extraterrestial origins...).

My original argument, however, relied on a more commonsense use of the world “natural.” Unlike the genuine love people feel for friends, relatives or infants, “patriotism” is a love of an abstracted political unit inculcated through constant indoctrination. Patriotism is not an intuitive or innate emotion; it can only be instilled through reinforced propaganda. This is the salient difference between "familial love" and patriotism that my opponent fails to grasp. There isn't anything remotely "natural" about worshipping an inanimate object (a flag) representative of a territorial political unit.

2. Patriotism is arbitrary

As with my first argument, my opponent similarly dodged my second argument by playing semantics about the nature of "morality." In order to be coherent, virtues and moral rights must be defined in objective and universal terms. Altruism - defined as an "unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others" [16] - is one example of a universal virtue, because it can be defended in universal terms like reciprocity and welfare. Virtues shouldn't vary accordingly to the soil a person stands on.

Patriotism is different, because loyalty to a particular nation for no other reason than loyalty's sake conveys no meaningful moral principles or distinctions.

3. Patriotism minimizes national shortcomings

My opponent alleges that I have "failed to show a causal connection, or even a correlation, between patriotism and ignoring [national shortcomings]." Showing such a connection is quite easy to do.

The German intellectual Goethe once wrote that "patriotism ruins history," [17] and several real-world examples bear this out. In modern Japan, for example, the existence of "comfort women" during WWII is often censored in school textbooks to avoid national shame or embarrassment. [18]

4. Patriotism distracts people from their common humanity

In the last round, my opponent wrote:

Patriotism doesn't politically divide the world, the political divisions of the world result in patriotism. How can love of the country precede the country?

Patriotism can, in fact, precede the actual existence of a nation-state. Separatism, for example, is always motivated by patriotism. Just as the "Founding Fathers" considered themselves patriotic when they separated from the British Empire, so the Confederates thought themselves patriotic in seceding from the United States. One man's traitor is another man's patriot.

Whether geopolitical boundaries come before or after the patriotism of a given group of people, the important point is that patriotism keeps the world divided. It is precisely this inherent divisiveness that makes patriotism so immoral.


[10] Martin L. King, Jr., Letter to Tracy D. Mygatt, Aug. 8, 1959.
[11] Bertrand Russell, Political Ideals (1917)(arguing for world government)
[12] Noam Chomsky, Understanding Power 314 (2006)
[14][15] John Lennon, Imagine (song)



I apologize if my argument was brief. It was the holidays, so I presented it in a distilled form. I will address it more in depth.

First, my opponent's definition of patriotism is a bit flimsy. But let's address what he has presented:

"Love of and devotion to one's country."

There is nothing in the definition that requires that one love one's country to the detriment of any other. Yet my opponent has presented that as a necessary consequence. Just because something can be misused toward a nefarious end doesn't make it not a virtue. My opponent's argument seems to consist of simply stating bad things and attributing them to patriotism.

Let us elaborate(1):

1. Special affection for one's own country
2. A sense of personal identification with the country
3. Special concern for the well-being of the country
4. Willingness to sacrifice to promote the country's good

Second, patriotism is different from nationalism. There are things my opponent attributes to nationalism as though it is the same. The precise difference is its own debate, but to use the terms interchangeably without support cannot be tolerated.

The argument:

Humans are social beings. We form relationships with our own kind. Contrast this to some insects or reptiles that live individualistic lives and are antagonistic toward their own kind, regardless of relation. However, no social being is social to the point of being friendly toward all members of its species. Even though we are social, we still have an "us" versus "them" mentality among our own species. This is innate and inherent: natural.

Studies have shown that people naturally form groups and naturally favor their own group and discriminate against others (2). We also depend on the groups we form. Most obviously, we are completely helpless for several years and will die without the care of our own species. More abstractly, we depend on the artificial constructs of our society. Individually, we are weak. Together we are strong.

My opponent has suggested that love for an abstract and distant concept as country is not as "natural" as love for a relative. This suggests a dichotomy between the two. Is this accurate? It leaves blank why we could ever develop attachment towards those unrelated to us. For example: the fact that we bond with those we are not related to (or at least are distantly related to) to form reproductive groups. That is a different kind of "love." We love our relations, because they carry our genes and we have a vested interest in ensuring their propagation. We can come to love those not related to us, because we understand at an instinctual level that variety is necessary for the long-term survival of the group. Understanding cooperation between unrelated humans has been a difficult task for sociobiologists but this phenomenon exists, even if we have yet to pinpoint its cause and history.

What does this have to do with patriotism? A country is an abstract concept like groups of unrelated individuals. Once you start cooperating outside the circle of your relations, all groups become abstract entities that are arbitrary. We form groups based on where we live, who we work with, the sports teams we like, the foods we eat, the games we play, the entertainment we watch, etc. This is indisputably natural. No one tells us to do this; we just do it. Patriotism is simply one form of this behavior, behavior that is necessary for our survival.

One expression of "group love" is the willingness to make sacrifices for the survival of the group: to defend it. What's the point of forming groups if we do not put energy and effort in maintaining and protecting them? A collection of disparate individuals that do not protect their group are helpless against the advances of a collection that does. Perhaps, at some point in the future, humans will no longer be an aggressive species, and patriotism an unneeded attribute, but we are hardly there.

How does this tie into being "morally praiseworthy?" There is no agreement as to what behaviors are necessarily moral. But generally speaking, morals are those behaviors that are to be encouraged: what we "should" do. My opponent has criticized patriotism for detracting from our universal humanity and dividing it into groups. This suggests that recognizing universal humanity is something which is morally praiseworthy.

This is the direction we are going, from the family units and tribes of our hunter-gatherer ancestors, to the city-states of ancient Mesopotamia, to ever larger political units. There have certainly been larger political units like the empires of Alexander the Great, the Romans, and the Mongols. Yet these were not political units that engendered patriotism. A significant problem, and factor in their falls, was the inherent disloyalty of the member groups. Kill the head, and the empire would fracture. Now consider America. Should the federal government be abolished, America, as a unit and country, would still exist. The head would reform due to the efforts of the patriotic body. Patriotism not only provides a survival advantage to the humans that express it, but to the groups of which it is a target.

If we recognize that the groups we form are growing larger, then if we are ever to recognize our universal humanity, this is something that lies in our future. It is not something that could exist today, if only we removed the barriers to it, it is something we must grow into. Since large nations are a step in that direction, and patriotism is a necessary element of that step, then patriotism is a necessary element to ultimately recognizing our universal humanity and, thus, morally praiseworthy.

1. Patriotism and Nationalism
I simply restate that these terms are not interchangeable, and my opponent clearly references nationalism as the cause.

2. Extreme patriotism.
To say that behavior taken to an extreme and abused is harmful does not necessarily translate that any and all expressions of that behavior or that behavior in generally, is harmful.

3. Patriotism is not natural
I've addressed this in my above argument. Human beings naturally form abstract groups based upon all sorts of abstract criteria.

4. Patriotism is arbitrary
Here my opponent uses the measure of objective and universal morality. This was not stated as an accepted measure for this debate and should not be accepted just because my opponent says so. Subjective and relative moral systems exist, at least in theory. My opponent cannot simply dismiss them.

The point about altruism is taken: "unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others"

Is not an aspect of patriotism an unselfish regard for or devotion to, the welfare of a nation and its inhabitants? Would this not make patriotism a form of altruism?

5. Patriotism minimizes national shortcomings
Providing examples of how countries attempt to minimize their shortcomings doesn't show why patriotism is the cause of that. My opponent is just simply stating a fact and then blaming that fact on patriotism.

In fact, patriotism can inspire people to deliberately criticize their country in order to make it better, in order to fix those shortcomings. Consider:

"So sometimes patriotism can take the form of "tough love," in which you have to criticize your government and/or society in order to get it to wake up and improve itself – be the best that it can be." (3)

6. Patriotism distracts people from their common humanity
The group to which the Founding Fathers were patriotic to already existed, even if it wasn't a politically recognized entity. The goal of the Separatism is merely to have the group which is the focus of the patriotism to be recognized as an independent entity in its own right. The group, as an abstract entity, nevertheless still exists.


Debate Round No. 3


As a preliminary matter, I want to thank my opponent for contributing to such an interesting and challenging debate. Notwithstanding his valiant attempts to discredit my position, however, he has fallen well short in meeting his own burden of proof to show that patriotism is a moral virtue.

In this final round, I will first address some of the smaller disagreements between myself and my opponent, before concluding with a final endorsement of a morally meaningful alternative to patriotism: the recognition of our common humanity.

Final Rebuttals:

1. Patriotism and nationalism are interchangeable terms.

Last round, my opponent criticized me for failing to distinguish between the terms "patriotism" and "nationalism." Conspicuously, my opponent failed to even offer a definition of "nationalism," much less explain how it differs in any meaningful sense from patriotism. As I will show below, the terms are essentially interchangeable:

Webster's defines nationalism as follows: "loyalty and devotion to a nation; especially a sense of national consciousness exhalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups." [1]

Similarly, Webster defines patriotism as: "love for or devotion to one's country." [2]

As these definitions make clear, there is no meaningful difference between patriotism and nationalism; the latter has simply become recognized as a pejorative term for the former. Our countrymen are always viewed as patriots, while those in rival or enemy countries are viewed as "nationalists." No less an intellect than world government proponent Albert Einstein viewed the terms interchangeably. [3, 4]

These kind of hairsplitting semantic arguments are an unnecessary distraction from the topic at issue: establishing whether patriotism - as defined in Round 1 - qualifies as a moral virtue. Given that my opponent accepted my Round 1 terms without objection through his first two rounds, I am mystified as to why he suddenly opened up them up for debate so late in the game.

2. On balance, patriotism is a harmful ideology

In the last round, my opponent characterized my position as a belief that "any and all expressions of [patriotism] or that behavior in generally, is harmful (sic)." This is a straw man argument. I did not say that any and all expressions of patriotism are harmful; I merely rebutted his argument that patriotism "conveys a distinct survival advantage" by showing that history has emphatically proven otherwise. Patriotism is a lot like cigarette smoking: you may not die or kill someone else every single time you wave a flag or sing an anthem, but the cumulative effects of patriotism are indisputably deadly.

3. Love for abstracted entities like nations is unnatural

My opponent made another mischaracterization of my argument in the previous round by arguing that human beings can fall in love with unrelated people. I never said that loving unrelated people is unnatural; I said that loving an imaginary political unit is unnatural. As I stated in Round 2, "love is an emotion best reserved for relationships between actual human beings."


In the last round, my opponent stated the following: "no social being is social to the point of being friendly toward all members of its species." This statement is both myopic and mistaken, because hundreds of influential intellectuals and spiritual figures have emphasized that developing a universal human solidarity is perhaps the primary moral objective in life. [5] A few choice quotations to support this point:

"I am not an Athenian or Greek; I am a citizen of the world." - Socrates [6]

"To him in whom love dwells, the whole world is but one family." - Buddha [7]

My opponent even conceded at one point in his last round that "[o]nce you start cooperating outside the circle of your relations, all groups become abstract entities that are arbitrary." I would rephrase this point; once you start cooperating and empathizing with other human beings, all limitations on your sense of love and devotion are arbitrary.

The moral arbitrariness of patriotism is what this debate is all about. Why should people limit their sense of love and devotion to finite communities short of the entire human race? My opponent suggested that such a limited worldview (patriotism) is necessary for survival, but, as I cautioned my prospective opponents in Round 1, "it will not be enough for Pro to defend patriotism as a necessary evil."

My opponent has failed to meet his burden in showing that patriotism is a virtue - an example or kind of moral excellence." I believe that I have shown, through the weight of my arguments, that patriotism is a moral vice upon mankind.

Vote Con.


[3];("Nationalism is an infantile disease; it is the measels of mankind."
[4];("Heroism at command, senseless brutality, and all the loathsome nonsense that goes by the name of patriotism, how violently I hate all this, how despicable and ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be part of so base an action!")



It appears that, long or short, my opponent is unwilling or unable to address my argument. He merely dismisses it as not meeting the burden of proof. He has not addressed any of the points I made, instead focusing only on my rebuttals of his initial argument.

I see no point in continuing the back-and-forth involving those rebuttals, since his failure to address my primary argument is tantamount to a concession.

As a conclusion, I will restate and summarize my argument:

1. Human beings naturally form groups and will naturally prefer the groups of which they are members to groups they are not.

2. Group formation and preference is conveys a survival advantage. Human beings need the support of other humans beings. If we do not defend, maintance, and sacrifice for our groups, the groups will cease to exist. Without those groups, we will cease to exist.

3. Patriotism is merely one expression of this behavior.

4. Moral behaviors are those behaviors we should have.

5. Since group formation such as patriotism is a behavior necessary for our survival, it is a behavior we should have, ergo it is morally praiseworthy.
Debate Round No. 4
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Lordknukle 4 years ago
Patriotistic nationalistic imperialism ftw!
Posted by drafterman 4 years ago
Cool story, bro
Posted by kjw47 4 years ago
In reality this is where patiotism will get one--revelation 16: 13-16---- Satan will mislead every kingdom ( govts,armies,supporters) to stand in opposition to God at Harmageddon. So does one think that by pledging ones allegiance to a kingdom of man and allowing their children to do the same that one can out of the otherside of their mouth pledge allegiance to the kingdom of God as well?
Posted by goldman 4 years ago
I believe patriotism has two sides. One is the bright side. The other is the dark side. The bright side , in which people love their country and have admiration for its customs, tradition and history. They are determined to work for the prosperity and economic development. The dark side is that people`s devotion to the country sometimes leads to the revolutionary movement. The country where dictator plays an important and decisive role faces anti-government movement springing up from among the general public who are oppresed and are not allowed to get their freedom. Their patriotic zeal for transforming the social and political system trigger their movement. However, in many cases civil war takes place and many people lose their life during the conflict with the military forces controlled by the government. Therfore, patriotism does not always produce pleasant , vital and civilized-society.
Posted by Hardcore.Pwnography 4 years ago
This is a bit off topic, but does anyone know how percentiles are calculated? I have a higher win ratio than other debaters I have seen, however I have a lower percentile.
Posted by socialpinko 4 years ago
"I wonder if anyone will accept this."

Most active debaters on this site are under 18 so.....
Posted by Stephen_Hawkins 4 years ago
"Con said his debates with teenagers have resulted in forfeits, not that most teenagers on this site forfeit."

I would amend that slightly. Con said his debates with teenagers have resulted in forfeits. Therefore he is alienating teenagers from debating this issue.
Posted by 1Historygenius 4 years ago
I wonder if anyone will accept this.
Posted by wjmelements 4 years ago
Darn; I wanted CON.
Posted by kabylewolf 4 years ago
Being a current Service member, I am highly interested in taking onto this debate. Although it is a shame that I am unable to accept.

I would like for this debate to be open for me to accept, seeing as how my definitions for both match and could potentially still make an effective point. Please reconsider your restrictions on this debate sir.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by InVinoVeritas 4 years ago
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm impressed with the arguments from both sides. Excellent. Con used sources more effectively, though.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: pro won arguments and effectively took down all of cons contentions fairly and quickly, but con had better sources.