The Instigator
lannan13
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
That1User
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

Resolved: If Forced To Choose, people ought to priotorize their national identity over their common

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
That1User
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: Select Winner
Started: 8/15/2016 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 8 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 681 times Debate No: 94767
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (16)
Votes (1)

 

lannan13

Pro

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...)

Resolution
Resolved: If Forced To Choose, people ought to priotorize their national identity over their common humanity.

Rules

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

Structure

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

Definitions

Ought- used to say or suggest what should be done [1]

Prioritize- to organize (things) so that the most important thing is done or dealt with first [2]

National identity- A sense of a nation as a cohesive whole, as represented by distinctive traditions, culture, and language: [3]

Over- Higher in rank than: [4]

Common Humanity- Belonging to or involving the whole of a community or the public at large: [5]


Sources
1. (http://tinyurl.com...)
2. (http://tinyurl.com...)
3. (http://tinyurl.com...)
4. (http://tinyurl.com...)
5. (http://tinyurl.com...)
That1User

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
lannan13

Pro

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.

Contention 1: Infrastructure and jobs

For this debate, though not US-central, I will be using a lot of American examples. First we have to observe is how the aspect of Nationalism has strengthen a nation to help them developed infrastructure. One aspect was in early US history in the mid 1820's, US Congressmen Henry Clay had purposed the American System, where the federal government would help developed national infrastructure (I will be referring to this as infra from this point on) and this in turn helped inspire US Nationalism do to the strive to help bring the country together in unity [1]. The structure, as argued by Clay, would help bring the nation to that of the Superpower status of today. Infra has massive importance in the nation as it helps bring the nation's economy up, the nation together, helps military movement, and helps the average citizen out with better sewage systems and cleaner water [2]. The US mastered this with the canals, railways, then the highways. The massive focus on bringing the nation together and strengthening the infra can help a nation make great bounds. The Corporate Consul on Africa has emphasized that Africa focuses on the development of their infrastructure as they are lacking from things from electricity to roads.

In 2016, the BLS has shown that the US construction industry employs over 6 million Americans [3]. These construction workers were paid nearly $22 per hour. In other nations around the world and in Africa, this can be a massive boost. Not only would the African continent be unified in a way that it has yet to occur, but they would be able to pay and put many unemployed Africans to work to help their nations expand. This would create a new race to modernize in Africa and it will help not only strengthen their country, but their sense of Nationalism as well. This would also lead the ANC to be in the same league as the EU and many people to be able to recognize and take African nations seriously. This would also help lead to other key advantages that I will later get into in my 3rd Contention.

Contention 2: The Dream

The American Dream, one of the world's most known and inspiring aspects as many immigrant’s flock to the US to peruse it. The dream is for many to inspire to be the greatest they can. They can come to the US to begin a new life where anyone can make it rich starting with nothing. Many people can start from stretch and become a millionaire. This is the type of mindset that has brought wave upon wave of immigrants to the US as they left behind everything they had to pursue this. Many people fled from areas in the world where they had nothing or fled oppression. They embraced the American Dream and under this banner of being an American, they hoped to succeeded in life. America has had many dreams within the overall dream. One was that of the Gold Rush. When gold was discovered in California, many Americans left home to California to set out to make a fortune [4]. Though little people really struck it rich, many set out hoping to make it and how it would change their lives for the better. Despite the Subprime, many people in America, still see home ownership and college education as the depiction of the American Dream [5]. The Government is doing what they can to make these things more and more affordable and more and more people are able to achieve this dream.

Americans aren't the only ones who are feeling the Dream. Post WW2, Italian women viewed the American Dream as a way too free themselves from the status they have in their society and wanted to achieve the same lifestyle as many of the American women [6]. Under Thatcher, the UK made a similar push the US did in the 2000's by moving to make housing more and more affordable as it was a symbol to help people in their country get a home to have affordable living [7].

Contention 3: Negotiation from strength

Picking off the first aspect of C1, Nationalism increases the position in negotiation. As a nation continues to grow further and further and Nationalism expands, a Nation increases their negotiation position. This can be seen throughout history from several instances. One can be seen between the US and Spain, when the US acquired several key territories from Spain, including Florida. There was another instance where American Nationalism lead to the secession of Texas from Mexico. Even though Mexico was winning the Texas Revolution, the cry of the remembrance of the Alamo and the Gonzales rallied their troops to keep up the fighting spirits. They were able to acquire their Independence from Mexico just a battle later. Another instance was when Germany was able to acquire the Suddenland from Czech even though their military was very miniscule, but their nationalism was strong. They were able to drive negotiations even though the other nations could have easily defeated Germany at that moment. When these African nations increase their standings, they would be able to get better deals with other nations and would be able to getting a smaller chance of being taken advantage in deals.

Sources
1. (http://tinyurl.com...)
2. (http://tinyurl.com...)
3. (http://tinyurl.com...)
4. H. W. Brands, The age of gold: the California Gold Rush and the new American dream (2003) p. 442.
5. William M. Rohe and Harry L. Watson, Chasing the American Dream: New Perspectives on Affordable Homeownership (2007)
6. Silvia Cassamagnaghi, "New York Nella Stampa Femminile Italiana Del Secondo Dopoguerra," ["New York in the Italian women's press after World War II"]Storia Urbana (Dec 2005) 28# 109, pp. 91–111.
7. (http://tinyurl.com...)

That1User

Con

Resolved: If forced to choose, people ought to prioritize their national identity over their common humanity.
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
Statelessness:
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.

Dual Citizenship:
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...)

Refugees:
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.
Debate Round No. 2
lannan13

Pro

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.
That1User

Con

Lannan did not commit unsportsmanlike conduct, thus the forfeit is unneeded. I forgive Lannan of the perceived misdeed. Thus I pass R4 to Lannan.
Debate Round No. 3
lannan13

Pro

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 [1]. 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.

===Opponent's Case===

R1: Statelessness

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?

R3: Refugees

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.


Sources
1. (http://tinyurl.com...)
That1User

Con

In this round, I shall rebut Pro's case
===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 [1]."
He also defines nationalism as "A sense of a nation as a cohesive whole, as represented by distinctive traditions, culture, and language: [3]" 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.

R1: Statelessness
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.

R3: Refugees
Pro states
"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.

Conclusion:
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.
Debate Round No. 4
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by lannan13 8 months ago
lannan13
It could have gone better, but thanks for the debate That1user.
Posted by That1User 8 months ago
That1User
Thanks for the vote, the RFD, and the critique Peep! Sorry if the debate was underdeveloped.
Posted by Peepette 8 months ago
Peepette
Critique: PRO outlines benefits of national identity as an effect of government works and mindset, but fails to tie in the obligation of citizens to prioritize their national identity, which CON points out. Instances where obligation to one"s nation as a collective people would have been a stronger starting point, such as how in WWII the nation came together in the war effort; a shared uniting goal. PRO fails to defend his contention which puts him at a disadvantage. CON"s initial stance was individual self-determination & individual humanity which off topic, but PRO fails to address that common humanity that is being argued. To CON"s credit he does not pursue this tact. CON"s definition rebuttal nationalism vs. national identity really did not have weight. Definition nit picking takes away from the topic at hand and the definitions were similar enough for generalization as it pertains to the topic. National identity: PRO makes the case that geopolitics is temporary, a person"s national identity prevails, but does not fully flushed out or connected to how it is a priority. A peoples" national identity is not necessarily aligned with the geopolitical, but with the collective heritage, language, land and culture, along with uniting goals for national preservation, not politics. Where ever people immigrate to they maintain their nation"s cultural identity. Italian-American, Mexican-American as CON uses as examples as conflicting, but in essences are a person's identity, as it is akin to a tree, rooted where they came from, the leaves are where they currently reside.
Posted by Peepette 8 months ago
Peepette
RFD: PRO states that a sense of nationalism improves infrastructure, the economy and brings the nation together. The American dream is a globally known mindset. Nationalism enables a position of strength in negotiation. CON opens that ought implies obligation. Since PRO has not provided proof other than benefits of national identity his case is nullified. People should exercise their right to self determination. With issues of statelessness & dual citizenship individuals are unable to prioritize national identity. PRO rebuts that statelessness & dual citizenship are outside the resolution. CON defends dual citizenship and the conflict that arises, common humanity is preferable; statelessness point is dropped. Refugees: CON points to when a country fails its citizens it is favorable to side with humanity. PRO rebuts that geopolitics are temporary and people side with their national identity. CON takes the upper hand with this argument which for the most part makes the debate. If nations have failed their people with human right violations, why is there obligation to prioritize their national identity? PRO fails to uphold his BoP.
Posted by fire_wings 9 months ago
fire_wings
oh, then what did you ask
Posted by bsh1 9 months ago
bsh1
Fire, that was not what I was asking about.
Posted by fire_wings 9 months ago
fire_wings
there was a forfeit...
Posted by bsh1 9 months ago
bsh1
Wait...what happened?
Posted by That1User 9 months ago
That1User
Rule 7: You mentioned should in your previous definition of ought, ought and should are both auxiliary words expressing obligation, so I defined obligation to make more clarity in the debate, instead of using ought and should without truly defining them.
Rule 12: "R2. Pro's Case/arguments; Con generic Case/arguments Con generic Case/arguments " The non-rebuttal round was never specified, you stated a "generic case" for Con. Con's general case is usually built upon refuting Pro, so I am not in violation of this rule.
Posted by lannan13 9 months ago
lannan13
Rule 7. You added the definition of Obligation and changed the definition of the word ought.
Rule 12. You violated the structure by addressing my arguments in the round that was a non-rebuttal round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Peepette 8 months ago
Peepette
lannan13That1User
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments