The Instigator
oboeman
Pro (for)
Losing
30 Points
The Contender
Logical-Master
Con (against)
Winning
61 Points

Resolved: Patriotism should be taught to children in school.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/17/2009 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,469 times Debate No: 7880
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (16)

 

oboeman

Pro

Greetings, and welcome. This round will be brief.

I contend that patriotism should indeed be taught to children in school.

Patriotism will be defined as the "love of one's country or nation."

The reason that this should be taught to chidlren in school is that (a) teaching this definition to future generations of chidlren will be beneficial to the welfare of the United States, (b) this is a time of development in one's mind and thought. Teaching one to love their country is teaching them to respect it. This boosts, mainly, their nation's societal welfare and national security. I affirm.

I can get further in depth in future rounds.
Oboeman.
Logical-Master

Con

Greetings and welcome. Just like my opponent, I shall start things off briefly, but reserve the right to present additional contentions in the next round should I find the need to.

In terms of my opponent's definition of patriotism, I wholeheartedly agree with it, thus I have no objections against it. Let us now move on to his case.

RE:"The reason that this should be taught to chidlren in school is that (a) teaching this definition to future generations of chidlren will be beneficial to the welfare of the United States . . ."

Hold on. Lets stop right there. Basically, PRO is saying that students should be taught to love their country or nation. THIS IS SAVAGELY LUDICROUS! What if we were talking about Nazi Germany . Should the citizens really have been trained to love their country? Should they really have been trained to tolerate the slaughter of the Jews as well as the racist practices of Adolf Hitler (who is merely one of the many representatives of countries who have done some pretty depraved things). This is PRECISELY what my opponent is propagating.

My example serves to demonstrate that impressionable young minds (a nation's future) should not be trained to love their country and respect it as this can simply result in justification and toleration of horrible things.

Instead, I propose an alternative; instead of teaching students to love their country, how about country simply works for the student's love? A leader should earn the love and respect of his comrades. A parent should nurture his/her child so that the child may in return love him/her.. What countries ought to do is set a positive image for itself as well as place a great deal of effort into actually EARNING its citizen's respect rather than reliance on training/coercion. This gives people the option as well as motivation to love their country and reduces government corruption.

RE:" (b) this is a time of development in one's mind and thought. Teaching one to love their country is teaching them to respect it."

As insisted above, forced respect can lead to nasty consequences. More importantly, it fringes on liberty. Let people have a choice so that they may see whether there is good enough reason to respect their country. That way, there is far less chance of people respecting the many deplorable practices of countries in the past.

RE: "This boosts, mainly, their nation's societal welfare and national security."

If PRO has no interest in providing a premise for his claims, I ask that you dismiss them without hesitation.

And that'll do it for now.
Debate Round No. 1
oboeman

Pro

First, I would like to thank my opponent, Logical-Master, for the delightful acceptance of this debate challenge.

As I said in the first round, "I can get further in depth in future rounds."

And thus, I will be adding an additional argument, explaining why patriotism should indeed be taught to children in school.
First, let me make sure we are clear on definitions:
Resolved - adjective - determined, explained, or answered.
Patriotism - noun - the love of one's country or nation.
Taught - transitive verb - caused to know something. http://www.merriam-webster.com...
(In this definition, I think we can agree that this "something" directly refers to the noun "Patriotism.")
Children - noun - young people.
School - noun - a building where young people receive education.

So, indeed, I affirm the resolution. "Resolved: Patriotism should be taught to children in school."
As each of the definitions provided are equivalent the their respective words, the transitive property would dictate the following to be upheld by the Pro stance:
"Determined, explained, or answered: The love of one's country or nation should be "taught" to young people in a building where young people receive education."

I will hereby be switching my main argument to the following:
I do think that the love of one's country or nation should be taught to young people in school. However, let us analyze the word "taught." "Taught," as primarily defined by Merriam-Webster, is "caused to know something." So let us be clear. Causing someone to know something (past tense) does not mean they should abide by it, or even like it. All that is being done is that something (patriotism, as defined) is being caused to be known by the young people. And thus, I fail to see any harm done with this. Causing children to know patriotism is giving them a valuable life lesson: that patriotism is not necessarily a good thing. Causing them to know patriotism means they learn about it from an informative standpoint, not a persuasive one. That is, they would be "taught" it. By no means does the resolution imply that children would be forced to abide by or dictated to that patriotism is good.

So what does it mean to "know" something?
Know - verb - to be familiar or acquainted with, be cognizant or aware of a fact or a specific piece of information, be aware of the truth of something.

Being caused to "know" "the love of one's country or nation" is, if I may reiterate, not persuading them to think patriotism is good or bad. It is just causing them to know what it is, on an informative basis. Shaping the viewpoints and opinions of children, therefore, has little to do with the resolution in which we were dealt. Ergo, I see no problematic issues with the resolution. Thus, I continue to affirm the resolution that patriotism should be taught to children in school.

That ought to be sufficient for the time being.
And I look forward to the remaining debate.
Logical-Master

Con

RE:""As I said in the first round, "I can get further in depth in future rounds."

Perhaps this is true . . . but as you can see my fair judges, my opponent has decided not to. Rather, his recent round is abusive in that he dismissed all of what he previously argued and changed his entire argument in the process. This would be the "moving the goal post" fallacy at work if we are to look PRO's stance in it's entirety. I would advise that you take this well into consideration when judging.

RE: "However, let us analyze the word "taught." "Taught," as primarily defined by Merriam-Webster, is "caused to know something."

I'm more than willing to take this definition into consideration, but while we're at it, lets use more of the listed definition as a reference point:

DEFINITION OF TEACH: 4 a: to instruct by precept, example, or experience b: to make known and accepted

Notice the term "accepted." In other words, students are being made to accept certain ideas when they are taught. Keep this in mind whenever PRO attempts to suggest that students do not have to like or abide by what is taught to them.

RE: "Determined, explained, or answered: The love of one's country or nation should be "taught" to young people in a building where young people receive education."

Basically, the definitions placed together would bring us to the conclusion that we are referring to the act of teaching students to love a (their) country or (their) nation. This simply leads back to the problems which I pointed out in the first round, thus I insist that you take those problems into consideration as well as consider my alternative.

RE: "However, let us analyze the word "taught." "Taught," as primarily defined by Merriam-Webster, is "caused to know something." So let us be clear. Causing someone to know something (past tense) does not mean they should abide by it, or even like it."

On the contrary, it means just that as "to know" something is in fact to abide by it. Essentially, it is abiding by what we understand to be the truth and living a life with this being part of one's paradigm. Nowhere in PRO's definition do we see anything to indicate that teaching is the process of having students merely take ideas into consideration. Rather, it is the process of having students KNOW certain information. In other words, students are being coerced into arriving at a conclusion. In this case, they are being coerced into arriving at the conclusion that they are to love their country or nation.

RE: "And thus, I fail to see any harm done with this. Causing children to know patriotism is giving them a valuable life lesson: that patriotism is not necessarily a good thing."

This is incorrect. Causing students to "know" patriotism is against the practices of free thought and could very well lead to scenarios such at the Nazi example which I pointed out in R1. Rather than cause students to "know" patriotism, it would be far better for students to be encouraged to merely take patriotism into consideration and make their conclusions regarding whether or not to be patriotic from there or what to think of patriotism.

RE: "
Being caused to "know" "the love of one's country or nation" is, if I may reiterate, not persuading them to think patriotism is good or bad. It is just causing them to know what it is, on an informative basis. Shaping the viewpoints and opinions of children, therefore, has little to do with the resolution in which we were dealt.

Even ignoring the fact that PRO has simply cherry picked one of the several definitions provided for "know" (not to mention that the very reason he is centered on using "know" is because of his decision to cherry pick a definition of taught), his interpretation is utterly erroneous.

The resolution refers to whether or not patriotism should be taught in schools . . . not whether or not students should learn OF or ABOUT patriotism in schools. In schools, we aren't taught George Washington. Rather, we're taught OF or ABOUT George Washington. For most words, the use the terms of or about makes a crucial difference in terms of what idea is being presented. There is ABSOLUTELY nothing to suggest that the resolution is referring to practice of INFORMING students.

And with that said, I'm out of time. Later.
Debate Round No. 2
oboeman

Pro

Alllllright then…
Here goes:

"This would be the "moving the goal post" fallacy at work if we are to look PRO's stance in it's entirety."

In accordance to my first round, I merely dropped those arguments. There is nothing at all wrong with dropping arguments. And adding arguments (provided it is not the final round) is generally acceptable as well. And my "objective," I would argue, is still the same: it is to demonstrate that the resolution is true – that is all.

DEFINITION OF TEACH: 4 a: to instruct by precept, example, or experience b: to make known and accepted

"To make known or accepted":
This still fits into where I'm going with my argument. That is, I am arguing that patriotism should be taught. And to be "accepted" is still not persuading any students. If the word were "acceptable," then yes, persuasion would be in play. But it is only ‘accepted." And if something is "accepted," it is only taken in account. That is how it is distinguishable from "acceptable."
Either way, however, the definition provided by my opponent is lower on the list (#4) than the definition I found (#1), in accordance with Merriam-Webster. I did not "cherry-pick" the definitions I used, but even if I did, the higher up on the list the definition is, the more critical the definition is. Essentially, such a definition has more authority and is more prominent. Nothing in the resolution suggests which specific definition we use, and thus, it is only right that we use the one highest up on the list of definitions (i.e. one with the most authority).

"Rather, it is the process of having students KNOW certain information. In other words, students are being coerced into arriving at a conclusion. In this case, they are being coerced into arriving at the conclusion that they are to love their country or nation."

I see nothing to suggest that "to know" would necessarily mean or lead to being "coerced into arriving at a conclusion." Again, referring to Merriam-Webster, the first definition: 1 a (1): to perceive directly : have direct cognition of (2): to have understanding of (3): to recognize the nature of : discern b (1): to recognize as being the same as something previously known (2): to be acquainted or familiar with (3): to have experience of [.]

"Causing students to "know" patriotism is against the practices of free thought [.]"

Again, to "know" patriotism is merely to be informed about it. And that is what happens in school all the time: people are being informed about things.

Ergo, I continue to affirm the resolution as it stands:
"Resolved: Patriotism should be taught to children in school."
Vote PRO.

I would like to thank my opponent for the fun debate. And good luck in the tournament thing, or just debating in general. It has been an interesting interpretation of this much-debated topic.
Cheers,
Oboeman
Logical-Master

Con

RE: "In accordance to my first round, I merely dropped those arguments."

On the contrary. PRO did not just drop his arguments. He changed his position entirely. In formal debate, this is referred to "changing your advocacy"

RE:"There is nothing at all wrong with dropping arguments. And adding arguments (provided it is not the final round) is generally acceptable as well. And my "objective," I would argue, is still the same: it is to demonstrate that the resolution is true – that is all."

In formal debate, Pro's method is referred to as "shifting advocacy.

To clarify to all of you, the term "SHIFTING ADVOCACY" is used in formal debate, and it's basically what it sounds: the affirmative position, or the 'instigator' on this site, is changing their position. Now, this is abusive because the job of the opposing team, the negative position, or the 'contender' on this site, has to prove the instigator wrong. However, the contender can't do his/her job at all if the instigator is just going to continually change their case. Him making a COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY NEW argument in R2 is abusive because it basically shows that he's willing to basically change to another position - another interpretation of the resolution - anytime I take out one of his points.

RE: "
This still fits into where I'm going with my argument. That is, I am arguing that patriotism should be taught. And to be "accepted" is still not persuading any students. If the word were "acceptable," then yes, persuasion would be in play. But it is only ‘accepted." And if something is "accepted," it is only taken in account. That is how it is distinguishable from "acceptable.""

False. Let us take a gander at oxford's definition: http://www.askoxford.com...

"Accepted: "... believe or receive as valid or correct."

When one is persuaded in favor of something, they are being shifted to believing or receiving an idea as valid or correct.

RE: "Either way, however, the definition provided by my opponent is lower on the list (#4) than the definition I found (#1), in accordance with Merriam-Webster."

Irrelevant. There is nothing to suggest that definitions are to be more accepted depending on there numerical order. My opponent has provided no evidence in favor of this notion, thus you are to dismiss it and accept my allegation concerning the cherry picking. :D

RE: "Nothing in the resolution suggests which specific definition we use, and thus, it is only right that we use the one highest up on the list of definitions (i.e. one with the most authority)."

The fact of the matter is that it is up to us to define the resolution. When using dictionary to do the defining, you must establish why other definitions of a term in question are not to be taken into consideration if your goal is to focus on merely one of the definitions. If this is not accomplished, it is unreasonable for one to simply pick a definition and say that this definition shall be the only definition which is taken into consideration. PRO has given us no reason to believe that the other definition are irrelevant thus his claim is not warranted.

RE: "I see nothing to suggest that "to know" would necessarily mean or lead to being "coerced into arriving at a conclusion. Again, referring to Merriam-Webster, the first definition: 1 a (1): to perceive directly : have direct cognition of (2): to have understanding of (3): to recognize the nature of : discern b (1): to recognize as being the same as something previously known (2): to be acquainted or familiar with (3): to have experience of [.]"

PRO yet again cherry picks the definition in attempt to get an edge. Let us look at the rest of the definition:

" to be aware of the truth or factuality of : be convinced or certain of b: to have a practical understanding of "

This isn't mere understanding which we're embracing, but a matter of factuality and being convinced and/or certain. This is where being forced to arrive at some conclusion comes from. What I'm insisting is teaching that does not allow students to be convinced or MADE certain of ideas, but rather . . . what I am upholding is that students simply be aware of the ideas concerning patriotism and arrive at their own conclusions. If they do reach some ideas which they wish to consider factual, let them do it by themselves rather than force it upon students.

Ergo, I negate the resolution as it stands:
"Resolved: Patriotism should be taught to children in school."
Vote CON

I'll leave it at that since time constraints are yet again upon me. Cheers to my opponent and the judges . . . as well as this pure fruitless semantic debate. :D

Goodnight.
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Yakaspat 7 years ago
Yakaspat
I agree with Con all the way.
Posted by Mr_smith 7 years ago
Mr_smith
"Fascism was a fairly popular political philosophy which made sacred whatever nation and race the philosopher happened to belong to." -Kurt Vonnegut, breakfast of Champions
Posted by animea 7 years ago
animea
Pro completely dropped his original stance and con successfully pointed this out the abuse.

Pro never addressed Con arguments about Nazi Germany(other than to completely change stances, which as I stated earlier is abusive).

Con won the definitional debate.

For these reasons, I will vote con.
Posted by paramore102 7 years ago
paramore102
this was a really good debate........... nice job to both debaters
Posted by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
Wow. That was pretty fast, voter number 2. I envy your reading speed. :D
Posted by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
That was pretty lazy on my part. I almost feel like voting this a tie
Posted by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
Ha ha ha. Semantics suck. :D
Posted by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
Hai!
Posted by TheSkeptic 7 years ago
TheSkeptic
...you guys are having a tournament, I presume o.O?
Posted by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
BAH HA HA! You missed the deadline (9:30 central time). I technically don't have to debate this and can win by default.

Lucky for you, I don't give a crap and shall thus ignore this error. :D
16 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Krazzy_Player 2 years ago
Krazzy_Player
oboemanLogical-MasterTied
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 Artifice 7 years ago
Artifice
oboemanLogical-MasterTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 7 years ago
Tatarize
oboemanLogical-MasterTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote 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 falafel 7 years ago
falafel
oboemanLogical-MasterTied
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 Yakaspat 7 years ago
Yakaspat
oboemanLogical-MasterTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by ninjaraygun 7 years ago
ninjaraygun
oboemanLogical-MasterTied
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 RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
oboemanLogical-MasterTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by bored 7 years ago
bored
oboemanLogical-MasterTied
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 animea 7 years ago
animea
oboemanLogical-MasterTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Icarus57 7 years ago
Icarus57
oboemanLogical-MasterTied
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