The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

Should national pride play second fiddle to internationalism?

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
vietbach2580 has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/4/2016 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 205 times Debate No: 94438
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)




I think the answer is "yes" because today is the era of globalization. "united we stand, divided we fall", therefore, one should put their national ego aside to be a part of the world, to be not just national citizens but global ones.


National pride should not- and will not- play second fiddle to internationalism. Although internationalism is undoubtedly good for the world as a whole, it has the same flaws as socialism and communism- people will inevitably grow tired of being interdependent. There has been a historical indication that people like to be independent, and don't necessary like concepts such as globalization of trade. Look at the UK, for example- among other things, the EU had requirements for trade deals, which the UK didn't like. This urge to control their trade so they could feel less cheated partially led them to leave the EU.

This is an inevitable sense of self that all people have. It is unlikely that all- or even most- nations will set aside that feeling of "I" for a feeling of "we." that's just not how people tend to work.
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Iamsmarter 1 month ago
The pro-side is utterly without a leg to stand on. If not for the moral freedoms provided by the constitutions of free states, we could not even discuss such an absurd proposition as to value equally the lives and well-beings of those outside the state as those within.

The foundation of the state was at its heart a mission to ensure the best opportunity for continued survival and happiness of those within the state and their progeny. There are no rights granted to anyone outside the state's stronghold, let alone a right to entry into the state or a right to be given a portion of the wealth obtained by the state's successes without having oneself reasonably contributed to those successes (i.e. by living poor in Africa one's entire life).

The state is a self-serving entity, in that it serves those who give it the power it has; i.e. its citizens. If the state does not obey the wishes of the citizens, or is not primarily in the service of their wishes, then it ceases to be a free state. A free state is here defined as one which holds the livelihood of its citizens in supreme priority over that of all other humans outside the state, for otherwise it is not a state but a ruling entity which steals the resources produced by its unwilling denizens and gives them away to foreign entities.
Posted by justiceandtruth 2 months ago
The prompt is much to ambiguous in respect to the terms , "national pride" and "internationalism." If you could define these words within the context of the your interpretation, that would be most helpful in fulfilling a counter position.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.