Resolved: If Forced To Choose, people ought to priotorize their national identity over their common
I would like to thank That1User for accepting this debate as it is the 2nd round of Bsh1's Unique Topics Tournament. For more info you can click on this link. (http://www.debate.org...)
Resolved: If Forced To Choose, people ought to priotorize their national identity over their common humanity.
1. No forfeits
2. Citations should be provided in the text of the debate
3. No new arguments in the final speeches
4. Observe good sportsmanship and act civilly/decorously in the debate
5. No trolling
6. No "kritiks" of the topic (challenging assumptions in the resolution)
7. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add resolutional definitions
8. The BOP is evenly shared
9. Follow the structure of the debate properly
11. Rebuttals of new points raised in an adversary's immediately preceding speech may be permissible at the judges' discretion even in the final round (debaters may debate such rebuttals' appropriateness)
12. Violation of any of these rules, or of any of the R1 set-up, merits a loss
R1. Pro's terms and definition; Con accepts
R2. Pro's Case/arguments; Con generic Case/arguments
R3. Pro generic Rebuttal; Con generic Rebuttal
R4. Pro generic Rebuttal; Con generic Rebuttal
Ought- used to say or suggest what should be done 
Prioritize- to organize (things) so that the most important thing is done or dealt with first 
National identity- A sense of a nation as a cohesive whole, as represented by distinctive traditions, culture, and language: 
Over- Higher in rank than: 
Common Humanity- Belonging to or involving the whole of a community or the public at large: 
I thank my opponent for this debate and will apologize in advance for my short arguments since I'm quite busy with packing and moving into college.
Pro's BoP is to prove that people ought to prioritize their national identity over their common humanity.
The word ought is used to express obligation. Obligation is defined as " something that you must do because of a law, rule, promise, etc.: something that you must do because it is morally right." (http://www.merriam-webster.com...)
Thus Pro has to prove that people have an obligation to prioritize their national identity over their common humanity, while Con has to prove that people do not have an obligation to prioritize their national identity over their common humanity. So far, Pro has failed to prove that people have to prioritize their national identitiy over their common humanity due to a law, rule, promise, or morality.
The basis of my argument is that people do not have an obligation to prioritize national identity over their common humanity, rather that people excercise their right to self determination, that people choose what they desire to choose. "You create your own reality." -Sartre
According to Sartre, bad faith is when a person fulfills a role and only a role, rather than there individual humanity.
Pro's underlying argument is that national identity ought to be prioritized over common humanity because nationalism leads to infrastructure and jobs, the American Dream, and Negotiation from strength. The problem with this argument is that national identity does not necessarily equal nationalism. One can identify as American but also not be a nationalistic American, thus the argument does not make sense. .
Problems with National Identity
According the UNHCR, the definition of a stateless person is " "a person who is not considered as a national by any State under the operation of its law" (http://www.unhcr.org...)
The US Department of State states,, "A stateless person is someone who, under national laws, does not enjoy citizenship " the legal bond between a government and an individual " in any country.At the end of 2011, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (the agency mandated to prevent and reduce statelessness) counted over 3.5 million stateless persons in 64 countries, but estimated that the actual number of stateless persons worldwide may be as high as 12 million. " (http://www.state.gov...)
With 3.5 million - 12 million people without citizenship to any nation, it is very hard to have a national identity, and thus these stateless people cannot fulfill the obligation to priotorize their national identity over their common humanity, since they do not have a national identity. In this case, it is by far more beneficial for people who are refugees/stateless to unite as humans rather than to unite based on national identity.
I met someone with dual citizenship for the United States of America and Italy, and she identifies as both American and Italian. If the USA and Italy ever go to war, however, she would have to swear allegiance to both nations, and would feel conflicted. In this case she would find anguish between her two national identities, and could find solace in valueing common humanity. According to the Pittsburgh Gazette, "Estimates range from the equivalent of the population of Wyoming (494,000) to that of Tennessee (5.7 million)." for people with dual citizenship in the United States. (http://old.post-gazette.com...)
According to the UNHCR, there are 65.3 million people who are forcibly displaced by their governments and other powerful entities, 21.3 million refugees who leave their homeland in search for survival, and 10 million stateless people. (http://www.unhcr.org...) For these people, their own nation did 3 of the following:
1) Violated their human rights by forcibly displacing them
2) Failed to protect them from harm and failed as a nation state.
3) Denied them citizenship, either de jure or de facto.
For refugees, it makes no sense for them to prioritize their national identity for nations that failed them by either violated their human rights, failed as a nation state, or denied them citizenship. In this case, it makes the most sense to bond with other humans such as family, friends, other refugees, and people who help them. Nations collapse and are temporary, while humanity is permanent.
Due to unsportsman like conduct. I forfeit the debate.
I'm sorry and deeply ashamed of such a terrible action that was undertaken by my part.
With this being the final round, I shall address my opponent's second round argument.
===Defense of Case===
My opponent briefly touched on my case in R2, so I shall address it here. My opponent argues that Nationalism isn't the same as a national identity, but that's not true. Nationalism, as defined by Merrian-Webbster dictionary, a desire by a large group of people (such as people who share the same culture, history, language, etc.) to form a separate and independent nation of their own . This is actually almost identical to the definition of National Identity that I have provided in R1. This means that not only are all of my arguments still stand, but the fact that I meet my BOP put forth by my opponent.
My opponent brings up how some people are stateless, hence, without a nation and it being impossible for them to have a national identity. This may be a case, but this argument can be considered atopical. The reason being is that the resolution is " Resolved: If Forced To Choose, people ought to priotorize their national identity over their common humanity." The underlined portion here implies that the person actually has a national identity since it implicates that there is a choice in the resolution. Thus, the argument here provided by my opponent should be thrown out of the debate due to the fact that it is outside of the resolution.
R2: Dual Citizenship
Here my opponent runs into another atopical problem. The resolution implies, once again, that there is only one citizenship as it states "Their national identity." As you can see, indentity is singular, not plural showing that this argument here is atopical and should be thrown out of the debate. My opponent states that the person would feel less conflicted in selecting their common humanity over both Italy and the US. This may be true, but it doesn't mean that they should prioritize their humanity versus their, then, identities. Who's to say that she doesn't renounce her citizenship with Italy or the US in favor of the other?
Nations may be temporary, but so are their politics. Sure there are nations that are failed states and oppressive. NAZI Germany may have been an offensive and a place where Jews weren't proud to say they were German nor the Japanese-Americans in the internment camps. Yet, the geopolitics change and Germany is more tollerant and Japanese are treated a great deal of better. This may be a short term thing, but we have to see that in the long term, people are still associated with their nation.
===Defense of Case===
Pro claims that Nationalism is identical to national identity. He defines nationalism as "desire by a large group of people (such as people who share the same culture, history, language, etc.) to form a separate and independent nation of their own ."
He also defines nationalism as "A sense of a nation as a cohesive whole, as represented by distinctive traditions, culture, and language: " There is a difference between having a sense of nationhood with other people and having the desire to create a nation as a sovereign political entity. One may identify as a member of a nation, and but may not necessarily advocate for the creation of a sovereign nation state, thus my statement that Nationalism isn't the same as a national identity remains true, and Pro has failed in negating this point.
Pro makes the contention that being stateless makes having a national identity impossible, and thus the argument is a topical. This is not true, someone has the ability to identify with any nation, regardless of citizenship status, although it is very difficult for these people to have a national identity, it is not impossible, thus it is not a topical. My primary argument is that people do not have an obligation to prioritize their national identity over their common humanity, but rather they should choose for themselves which is better for them in a given situation.
R2: Dual Citizenship
Pro once again makes the accusation that an argument of mine is a topical, and once again, he is false. If one has a sense belonging to two nation states, for example the United States and Italy, then their national identity is both American and Italian, and one has the ability to choose two national identities, or merge them into one as Italian-American. Identity is not necessarily singular, a single person has the ability to have multiple identifies, including my maternal grandmother who identifies as Mexican-American. She was born and raised in Mexico and has Mexican customs and identifies with Mexico legally but she lived in the United States for most of her adult life, is an American citizen, and has integrated into American society. Thus, having more than one national identity is possible as long as someone relates to a nation.
"Nations may be temporary, but so are their politics. Sure there are nations that are failed states and oppressive. NAZI Germany may have been an offensive and a place where Jews weren't proud to say they were German nor the Japanese-Americans in the internment camps. Yet, the geopolitics change and Germany is more tollerant and Japanese are treated a great deal of better. This may be a short term thing, but we have to see that in the long term, people are still associated with their nation."
This argument is weak. The temporariness of a nation and politics is dangerous, because a once stable nation like Syria or Iraq can descend into chaos and Civil War, forcing people to leave their homes in order to preserve the lives of themselves and their families. Pro brings up Nazi Germany as being offensive. It was far worse from being offensive, it killed 6 million Jews in the Holocaust, ( https://www.ushmm.org... ) and 6 million other people deemed as "undermensch" (https://en.wikipedia.org...) In that present moment, why did these people have an obligation to prioritize their national identity of the nation that violated their human rights by systematically killing them? This makes no sense. In regards to Japanese Interment camps, most of the Japanese who were sent to interment camps during WWII were American citizens by jus soli as they were born in the United States, which is granted in the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution. In this case, why did the Japanese American citzens have an obligation to prioritize their national identity when their government violated their human rights guaranteed to all citizens in the United States Constitution? Once again, this makes no sense and in both cases Pro does not give proof as to why people ought to priotorize their national identity over their common humanity in all these cases. Perhaps now people are treated better, but that did not matter when they were being opressed and killed by their own nation, and this still happens in the present day. Also, it is hard to be associated long term with their nation when their nation kills them and their families.
Pro's BoP is to prove that people have an obligation to prioritize their national identity over their common humanity, and he has failed to prove this resolution. My BoP as Con is to negate this resolution, and so far I have negated the resolution, thus I have fulfilled my BoP and won the debate.