The Instigator
WillDC22
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
BLAHthedebator
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

Students at schools should be allowed to not participate in the national anthem ect

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 3 votes the winner is...
BLAHthedebator
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/2/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,087 times Debate No: 66173
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (15)
Votes (3)

 

WillDC22

Pro

I will say it now, I am fairly antinationalistic, and for good reason, so at my high school, quite a while ago, I decided I would not stand and put my hand to my heart during the national anthem. I wasn't alone, my friend and I were both still sitting until a teacher told us (all be it politely) to stand. We did what we were told, mainly because 1. I was not planing on getting in trouble, I was simply excersising my right to free speech, and 2. The teacher was nice, and was a teacher I was going to have the class of the following day. I would now like to discuss whether it should be in my rights to not participate in this nationalistic practice.
BLAHthedebator

Con

I accept, even though I am not from the U.S.

BOP is on Pro.
Debate Round No. 1
WillDC22

Pro

I do not understand what you mean
BLAHthedebator

Con

BOP = Burden of proof

You have to prove that students should be allowed to not participate in the national anthem act, because you are arguing against the status quo.
Debate Round No. 2
WillDC22

Pro

If you insist. I am for the right not to participate in the things already stated because it enforces students to have a common nationalism, nationalism which is what started both world wars, and countless other wars. For me, I want to have the freedom to not show nationalism, and it is also in the constitution: freedom of speech.
BLAHthedebator

Con

Thank you for instigating this debate. I will build my rebuttals here:

=Rebuttals=

Rebuttal 1:

My opponent states that it is unconstitutional to be forced to participate in the nattional anthem act at schools, since it violates students' freedom of speech (in this case, not wanting to show nationalism). However this may actually contradict himself as the U.S. actually created the constitutional amendments; one of which my adversary is stating. [1]

Basically, what he is trying to do is disregard the nation of U.S.A. while literally using one of the constitutions that were created by the nation that he is disregarding (which is U.S.A). Therefore, this is a hypocritical statement.


R2:

My adversary also argues that being forced into national anthem acts at schools is basically being forced to have a common nationalism with others; one that started world wars and other wars. However, the only war that the U.S. started was the Cold War, which wasn't even an actual war. [2] The only wars that the U.S. even participated in were the Civil War [3], the Vietnam War, [4] and World War II [5].

Conclusion

I have refuted both of my opponent's points and have proved that Pro has failed to uphold his burden of proof.

(1) http://en.wikipedia.org...;
(2) http://en.wikipedia.org...
(3) http://en.wikipedia.org...
(4) http://en.wikipedia.org...
(5) http://en.wikipedia.org...;
Debate Round No. 3
WillDC22

Pro

I did not say to disregard the nation, I said you should be able to choose not to show nationalism for the country.
BLAHthedebator

Con

My opponent simply states, for a rebuttal, that he only said people should have the freedom to not show nationalism. This is true, however he does not provide a clarification as to why we should allow this freedom. Also, it is probable that not showing nationalism to your own country, especially as a student, is disregarding the U.S.

This is my adversary's only point he makes, and therefore I can only respond this much.

With that, I turn the floor over to Pro.
Debate Round No. 4
WillDC22

Pro

And back to me, for one last statement. The clarification for why is, as I have previously stated, that a. Freedom of speech, and b. both world wars were results of nationalism. I would disagree, yes, in some cases it would be them disregarding the US, but I would argue that I feel strongly that the national anthem is about war, and is being proud our flag survived a particularly deadly bombardment by the brittish naval fleet (that is the literal song FYI) and you could be stating many things with freedom of speech, one of them being you are against glorification of war (well, in this case it's more of a glorification of our own soldiers being killed by cannonballs and us not fighting back). I understand the song is ment as a different meaning (that in a dark hour, our flag still stands tall), but there is the potential for other interpretations that some may not agree with. I will admit I have some level of nationalism, I just feel it's important to stand up for what's right, and not to blindly follow your country and agreeing we will never fall.
BLAHthedebator

Con

And here we are, with the last round. Thank you, again, for instigating this debate. I will make my final rebuttals here:

=Rebuttals=

In this round my opponent's entire argument is based off of what the national anthem really means. I have several responses to this.

Basically he is making this conclusion.

P1) Anything associated with war and violence should be avoided
P2) The national anthem is associated with war and violence
C) The national anthem act should be avoided

Both premises are complete fallacies.

Premise one is incorrect as information and facts about wars do not really cause itself to need to be avoided. If we were to steer away from war, its facts and anything associated to it, we would not have the slightest emotion for or against war, and this could cause many times more wars than there had ever been.

Premise two is also invalid as the national anthem is just a celebration of the independence of the U.S. What's more, if the American national anthem were about war, the U.S. would just not be as peaceful as it is. People are influenced by the national anthem, and, if the national anthem were celebrating violence, 5 year-olds would probably be in the mafia.

In regards to one of Pro's arguments, just because people have different interpretations doesn't mean the national anthem was intended for such meanings. If people interpret it in a way that they don't agree with, that doesn't really affect if they can interpret it in a way they DO agree in.

Also, Pro inappropriately starts bringing up statements like how the national anthem is also about U.S. soldiers being crushed by cannonballs and U.S. citizens not doing anyhing about the conflict. This is seriously off-topic and irrelevant as to what we are debating. If this were a valid statement (which it is not), not only students would be allowed to not participate in the national anthem act, but actually ALL citizens on the face of U.S.A.

Furthermore, the framework and resolution of this debate is a bit distorted, as Pro is arguing only for students at schools. He disregards other U.S. citizens like home-school students, and people in general. What's more, in the second round on, Pro argues for U.S. citizens in general, and therefore is off-topic.

=Conclusion=

In conclusion, I have sucessfully refuted my opponent's arguments and proved that once again, my adversary has failed to uphold their BOP.

Once again, I thank Pro for instigating this debate and wish him good luck in others. But for now, VOTE CON!
Debate Round No. 5
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by WillDC22 2 years ago
WillDC22
I don't see what seeming conservative has to do with it
Posted by gomergcc 2 years ago
gomergcc
I would state that it is your right to not stand and to sit quietly. I did it for years. I There are teachers that try to make it seem like you cant tough. It is one of the few rights of free speech a student has. I always just stated I don't worship false idols. It is an easier fight to win as it makes you seem conservative.
Posted by WillDC22 2 years ago
WillDC22
I never said it was all about war, but the national anthem is literally describing an act of war that happened in the war of 1812
Posted by WillDC22 2 years ago
WillDC22
In the end, to me, winning doesn't matter, it is all about having a good debate
Posted by BLAHthedebator 2 years ago
BLAHthedebator
Yeah, but I was talking about more if the major ones. In this case minor wars don't really contribute.
Posted by carriead20 2 years ago
carriead20
Actually Con the U.S has been in more than just 3 wars.
http://americanhistory.about.com...
Posted by BLAHthedebator 2 years ago
BLAHthedebator
I do not understand how the U.S. national anthem is ALL about war and violence. Maybe you could specify how they were talking about this in the national anthem: are they celebrating that war exists? Or are they celebrating the independence from Britain?

I also do not understand how there could be a reason for you to not participate only in some cases. Please elaborate.
Posted by WillDC22 2 years ago
WillDC22
I believe this debate should go for sporting events too
Posted by WillDC22 2 years ago
WillDC22
Well then, it looks like I would be better off. You don't know my school rallies, I would rather be in the halls... That we kind of lack
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
If I were a teacher and one of those little brats wanted to stay seated, they would do it out in the hall.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
WillDC22BLAHthedebatorTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: pro fails to use sources or rebuild his stance well.
Vote Placed by kbub 2 years ago
kbub
WillDC22BLAHthedebatorTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: This has been quite a fun debate to read! Nice job, both sides. Con: you have won the debate, but I have a few suggestions for ways I might have been more eager to vote your case. I don't buy R1--it isn't actually contradictory fight nationalism with the constitution. In R2, Con completely misunderstood Pro's case against nationalism causing both world wars, not the US. Also, Con was completely wrong: the US has been in dozens of wars, and started many (no source points). Pro basically dropped their original arguments, and then picked them back up. Con's last round was my favorite in the debate. Con rightly pointed out that there was no clear link between the national anthem and violence. Normally I wouldn't pick up this argument because it was made in the last round; however, Pro also made new arguments at the end, which Con needed to rebut. I'll therefore excuse it this time. Pro: Try to make your analysis a little more thorough and consistent. Great debate on both sides! Keep it u
Vote Placed by carriead20 2 years ago
carriead20
WillDC22BLAHthedebatorTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con made better arguments, had sources, and got conduct because he explained what BoP means.