Americans Ought to Feel National Pride (7.42k Characters)
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 7,420
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Resolution: Americans are justified in feeling national pride.
Definitions -
Americans: citizens of the United States of America
National Pride: a feeling of deep pleasure or satisfaction arising from the accomplishments, behavior, and condition of the USA in the past and present
BoP is shared. I must advance a case as to why we should not feel national pride, whereas my opponent must advance a case as to why we should feel national pride.
as the deadline for removal approached, thousands of federal soldiers and Georgia volunteers entered the territory and forcibly relocated the Cherokees. Americans hunted, imprisoned, raped, and murdered Native Americans. Cherokees surviving the onslaught were forced on a 1,000-mile march to the established Indian Territory with few provisions. Approximately 4,000 Cherokees died on this “Trail of Tears.”
U.S. imperialism took a variety of forms in the early 20th century, ranging from colonies in Puerto Rico and the Philippines to protectorates in Cuba, Panama, and other countries in Latin America, and open door policies such as that in China.
teachers are more likely to interrupt girls, less likely to call girls to the front of the class to demonstrate, and less likely to direct their gaze toward girls while answering open-ended questions.
- PRO rejects the premise that there's some set of good deeds that might out-accomplish the harms of genocide.
- PRO likewise rejects the notion that all national pride must prove unjust unless and until the harm of genocide is eclipsed by our beneficence.
- That's a trap- the crime of genocide is a black hole of guilt that can't be escaped or outshone by brighter stars.
- PRO will provide no liist of patriotic talking points to hold up against CON's horrors, but if no achievement scrubs clean the stain of genocide, then the only just outcome by CON's plan is perpetual shame. CON offers no plan for redemption, no period of mourning from which America might emerge cleansed. CON is satisfied to condemn and only condemn without considering the consequences of failing to forgive ourselves.
- In a nation defined as We the People, National pride is a pride in our fellow citizens, not a pride of place or history or skin color or sex. Isn't it possible for a man to feel shame for his brother and pride in his brother at the same time? Isn't this true of many types of human relationships? Old loves? Weird friends? Sure we can. Of course we can. Consider then the notion of national pride as an expansion upon human brotherhood and our many other dual-natured, nuanced human relationships. Our national pride is our love for one another, and We the People won't long endure without that love.
- CON argues for an absence of any legitimate American pride, without offering any plan for correction or forgiveness or amendment.
- What is the consequence of delegitimizing any sense of patriotism without any plan for the relief of that unjustified state?
- PRO argues we should call absence of pride by its proper name, shame; and yes, we should feel shame for many past and present cruel injustices to some appropriate but non-debilitating extent and yes, we should seek the redemption of correction. But its not as if we can only feel ashamed or only feel proud of our nation. Shame does not cancel pride or make pride unjust.
- It always was and always will be both emotions, such is the heartache of democracy. In an unjust kingdom one can always blame the King but in a democracy, we can only blame ourselves.
- If a relationship is always, only shameful and never proud then that's a bad relationship that should be severed but CON has not advised whether CON recommends succession.
- PRO urges CON not to forget that America is not only the displacer of Native Americans but also the Native Americans displaced. America is not only the descendant of slavers but America is also, even more so the descendants of slaves. Must black Americans share in the illegitimacy of American pride? Let's note that the aggrieved in PRO's cases are mostly also Americans.
- CON is not really faulting America for the displacement of Native Americans, since Native Americans are also Americans and Native Americans are not at fault for their own displacement. CON is really faulting mostly white men for the displacement of Native Americans. Can't America be ashamed of white genocide but proud of Native endurance simultaenously? Must even Native Americans suffer the lack of any justified patriotism or is CON ultimately just blaming the wrong group of humans?
- Likewise, CON is not really faulting America for the enslavement of African-Americans, since Black people are Americans and African-Americans are not at fault for their own enslavement. CON is really faulting mostly white men for the enslavement of African-Americans. Can't America be ashamed of white genocide but nevertheless proud of Black resiliance? Must blacks also suffer the lack of any just feelings of patriotism or is PRO ultimately just blaming the wrong group of humans?
- Same thing with imperialism: aren't we mostly just faulting white guys?
- PRO is not really faulting America for sexism, since America is majority female. PRO is really faulting mostly men for sexism against women. Can't Americans be ashamed of our male chauvinism but also proud of our influential feminism at the same time? Must women also suffer the lack of any justified feelings of patriotism or is PRO ultimately just blaming the wrong group of humans?
- CON's argument fails as unfair generalization: not all Americans are guilty of all these accusations and some of the Americans CON addresses are entirely innocent of CON's accusations. Why should these innocents be denied and sense of national pride?
- Democracy is losing ground worldwide. While America hunkers down hunkers down through Trump and other plagues, Hong Kong is losing her autonomy. Today Beijing pulled pro-democracy books from the Hong Kong's libraries. Russian democracy is a shadow, a memory.
- "Data scientists and independent election observers have claimed statistical analysis suggests there was massive falsification of votes in a referendum this week that overwhelming approved constitutional changes to grant Russian President Vladimir Putin the right to extend his rule until 2036."
- If PRO and CON can agree that democracy is a value worth preserving and increasing in the world (and as we are Americans we ought to so agree), then we should also agree that the oldest democracy in the world must stand proud on the ramparts of democracy and project some sense of "to preserve democracy, we will fight." How do we do that if we can't take some pride in our nation and our accomplishments?
- Consider the problem of George Washington. As a nation we have to be able to take pride in our great general's victory at Yorktown, his embrace of popular election and his relinquishment of office. These are famous and admirable acts that directly inform the very birth of modern democracy. And yet the man owned humans who he whipped and raped and forced to work his crops. PRO and CON agree that the dichotomy is irresolvable but where CON asks us to forego all pride therefore, PRO argues that we cannot do so without then blinding ourselves to the gradual nature of democracy's growth: to the way enfranchisement is never quite complete but in a democracy always expanding; the way a flawed union works to make ourselves more perfect. We must hold the bad and the good together before us unblinking but to never take pride in our man Washington harms our democratic values and offers no advantage to any community.
What is the consequence of delegitimizing any sense of patriotism without any plan for the relief of that unjustified state? ....to never take pride in our man Washington harms our democratic values and offers no advantage to any community.......must stand proud on the ramparts of democracy and project some sense of "to preserve democracy, we will fight." How do we do that if we can't take some pride in our nation and our accomplishments?
Concluding that an idea or proposition is true or false because the consequences of it being true or false are desirable or undesirable. The fallacy lies in the fact that the desirability is not related to the truth value of the idea or proposition.
CON is not really faulting America for the displacement of Native Americans, since Native Americans are also Americans and Native Americans are not at fault for their own displacement. CON is really faulting mostly white men for the displacement of Native Americans. Can't America be ashamed of white genocide but proud of Native endurance simultaenously?
- PRO rejects the premise that there's some set of good deeds that might out-accomplish the harms of genocide.
In a nation defined as We the People, National pride is a pride in our fellow citizens, not a pride of place or history or skin color or sex. Isn't it possible for a man to feel shame for his brother and pride in his brother at the same time? Isn't this true of many types of human relationships? Old loves? Weird friends? Sure we can. Of course we can. Consider then the notion of national pride as an expansion upon human brotherhood and our many other dual-natured, nuanced human relationships. Our national pride is our love for one another, and We the People won't long endure without that love.
I understand that Oromagi isn't explicitly engaging in an Appeal to Consequences Fallacy
- ...or even implicitly. An appeal to consequence is only a fallacious argument in support of an objective fact
- "In logic, appeal to consequences refers only to arguments that assert a conclusion's truth value (true or false)... appeal to consequences does not refer to arguments that
address a premise's consequential desirability (good or bad, or right or wrong)
instead of its truth value. Therefore, an argument based on appeal to
consequences is valid in...abstract ethics, and in fact such arguments are the cornerstones of many moral theories."
- E.g., if PRO were to argue that
- the stain of slavery harms America therefore
- Washington did not own slaves-
- that argument would be a false appeal to consequence.
- Arguing that the stain of slavery ought not to extinguish all national pride in the man is a subjective argument- an opinion and not a fact.
- JUSTIFIED is subjective: an ethical consideration. No act should claim moral justification without considering the consequences of that act.
- We are arguing ethics: the rights and wrongs of patriotism. The consequences of invalidating every American's national pride, without benefit of individual consideration or any plan for national forgiveness, redemption, for the normalization of Union- that is the central question of this debate.
- Regrettably, CON has wrongly claimed fallacy as a substitute for confronting the consequences of invalidating American patriotism and so has dropped PRO's primary concern with CON's plan. CON only has one round left to either deny or concede that stripping America of all national pride represents a lasting national harm.
I also object to this approach because this debate is about whether Americans are justified in feeling national pride, not whether it is desirable that Americans feel national pride
- Look at the fallacy definition above- addressing the right and wrong (justification) of an argument is to a address "a premise's consequential desirability." Humans denied any sense of self-worth die- by suicide, recklessness, self-medication, etc. Nations are conglomerates of humans that likewise die when stripped of self worth -by disintegration, stagnation, conquest, etc. A highly undesirable state, yes, but also an existential threat.
- CON is arguing for national suicide as a just response to American injustice, past and present.
- PRO argues for a renewal of pride; that reparation and re-dedication to that original proposition that all men are created equal is the more just and productive response to failure.
- A justified patriotism is desirable but more than that PRO argues that patriotism is essential.
- CON concedes that some Americans are innocent of the failures he described in R1 but if no Americans are justified in feeling any national pride as PRO argues, then those innocent are punished for American failures alongside the guilty- an unjust result.
Again, when considering whether we should be proud of the nation, we must consider the nation in its totality, otherwise we're not really talking about the nation, but rather a part of it.
- Let's note that the subject of PRO's resolution is AMERICANS and not AMERICA. The "nation in its totality" is called AMERICA and is not the subject of our debate. The subject of our debate is AMERICANS defined as the set of all humans who are US citizens, which yes, is only one part of America but is also the most essential part.
- Abstract concepts like "AMERICA" are incapable of feeling emotions. We are debating whether US citizens should feel pride or not. Only humans feel patriotism, not nations. When we say AMERICANS, we mean 330 million humans with unique conditions of guilt and innocence, shame and pride. No collective emotion or collective justification for some one emotion may be substituted for the nation in all its 330 million contributions
when we consider the historical actions of all these people, we must consider the good alongside the bad.
- Agreed. So why, then, does CON apply the negative consequences of those actions (absence of pride) to both the good and the bad? Why can't we agree that American men should feel shame for male chauvinism but women should also take a national pride in suffrage? Why do women have to share in the shame CON places on the "nation in its totality?"
It would be more reasonable to say that Americans are justified in feeling conflicted or ambivalent toward their country
- Agreed.
- CON effectively concedes the debate here
- CON's resolution is that pride is
- UNJUSTIFIED- "not shown to be right or reasonable."
- CON is arguing the absolute here, not PRO.
- Sometimes justified and sometimes unjustified is not UNJUSTIFIED which is the condition PRO advocated in his thesis.
- "Americans cannot justifiably be proud of their country"
- That is, CON's "nation in its totality" is never reasonably proud- an absolute
- PRO's argument justifies the ambivalent state here, not CON.
- PRO argued as much in R1:
- "Isn't it possible for a man to feel shame for his brother and pride in his brother at the same time?"
- Holding pride and shame simultaneously, like holding Washington's slavery and Washington's presidency simultaneously, that is the appropriate response.
- That ambiguity refutes CON's "Americans are unjustified in feeling national pride"
- CON shifts the goalposts by substituting the phrase "on balance" used in R1 with a fairly disingenuous "balanced approach" in R2
- ON BALANCE means "overall, when all factors are taken into account."
- The phrase precedes judgement.
- As when CON concludes R1:
- "Once we have weighed the negatives I've highlighted and the positives
my opponent will highlight, it will become clear that Americans cannot
justifiably be proud of their country."
- A balanced approach means incorporating elements from both sides. Which does not characterize CON's R1 argument at all.
- CON only listed American faults (in R1) and
- CON's only verdict was the delegitimization of patriotism (R1 and R2).
- CON cannot start recharacterizing R1 as a balanced approach in R2 just because PRO spotted CON's thumb on the scale.
my opponent has rejected my balanced approach... Unfortunately, I am unable to identify a clear justification for this rejection...In what way does the inability to overcome the moral stain of genocide invalidate my approach?
- PRO rejected CON's game precisely because there was no balance in CON's approach.
- PRO explained there is no
- "set of achievements that undoes or overcomes the sins of slavery or genocide, abuse and oppression."
- CON's premise is morally flawed. We Americans are justifiably proud of Salk's Polio vaccine but to weigh that event on false scales vs. Hiroshima is to diminish the profundity of both events. It is to reduce both events to arbitrary assessment of value when the true resonance of either event surpasses contemporary comprehension.
- CON ignored the problem of Washington.
- CON ignored the necessity of national pride to the preservation of the state.
- CON needs to clarify his thesis- AMERICA or AMERICANS?
- CON needs to clarify NO JUSTIFIED PRIDE (R1) or BALANCED APPROACH (R2)?
- PRO looks forward to CON's R3.
- Not being proud of George Washington could prevent us from seeing the "gradual nature of democracy's growth: to the way enfranchisement is never quite complete but in a democracy always expanding; the way a flawed union works to make ourselves more perfect."
- To defend against the rising tide of authoritarianism internationally, we need to be proud of ourselves to promote democracy.
- The preservation of the state itself
- Re: Washington and democratic growth - National pride isn't necessary to continue the "gradual nature of democracy's growth." One can lack national pride and still arrive at the conclusion that a stronger, fairer, and more just democratic society should be pursued. One can observe the good and the bad in our country and resolve to increase the good and decrease the bad. They don't need to feel pride to do that.
- Re: Democracy promotion - Again, one does not need to be proud of their nation to conclude that it is preferable that China and Russia be stymied in their attempts to spread authoritarianism. All one needs to do is recognize that democracies, though flawed, are better systems of government than authoritarian regimes. One can reach this conclusion even while realizing their nation has done too many horrible things to merit feeling pride.
- Re: State preservation - I have a similar counter here, as well. One does not need to be proud of their country to recognize that it is morally preferable for the state to continue functioning efficiently in service to the public good.
This was a difficult vote to make on the basis of a winner selection, coupled with the error made by Pro in round 3. Con's approval of a remedy for the error actually plays the role of the very argument Pro was making for the proposition of the debate. No, after careful consideration of the arguments, I disagree with Pro's r2 argument regarding the Appeal to Consequences Fallacy. Con's argument that pride in America [and, in fact, any national's pride in his/her country] is not a zero sum game, but rather, a serious consideration of the great achievements made by, in this specific case, Americans. The distinction drawn by Con of America being a construct of Americans, and not just the country [a thing, after all, not a person] and that, as Americans, we do not and should not wear America's sins on our sleeves because we, individually, did not commit them. As it happens, by religion [Judeo-Christian], I do not believe we bear the sins of Adam; he does, and he, alone. We bear our own sins, and even at that, as Con argued, we can be proud of America.
No problem at all friend
I accept your argument and I will follow it. Thank you.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: fauxlaw // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 0:1; 1 points to Con.
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
This vote is borderline. Borderline votes are ruled to be sufficient.
The voter's RFD, while perhaps too vague of a summary, is satisfactory enough for me to believe that he sufficiently weighed the arguments present. One thing to note as a rule of thumb: statements such as "I disagree/agree", "I do/do not believe", or "I think" should not be present in a vote. While I did not believe the voter was inappropriately biased, having those statements present can cast unnecessary doubt. A different mod may see those opinionated phrases and strike them down to their leisure. It is much better to say "I did/did not buy the debater's argument because ____" as it ensures a more objective approach.
If either of you get time tonight, the vote on this was reported (it was reported this morning or late last night, so not quite last minute):
https://www.debateart.com/debates/2154/vote_links/5408
NOTICE: Only 20 hours remain within the voting window!
Hey Croc, I appreciate your earlier expressions of interest in this debate, and your detailed RFD has me interested. I'm hopeful you'll still be able to get a vote in.
It's quite alright. Do what makes you comfortable.
I could give it a shot ig but i'd be very unlikely to vote.
I'm sorry man... I just don't think that with a day/2 days left I'd be able to read through the debate, formulate my opinions and cast a reliably good vote. I am a very slow and distracted reader, I have trouble summing up large args and am super OCD about the whole thing too. Hope you understand :(
I really thought you argued some good points, and in my view, forgiving oromagi his r3 error was a valiant gesture I'm not sure I would have granted, and, it actually played into my decision of the approach taken by Pro [yes, I mean Pro] that patriotism [from a pride perspective] can forgive our errors sufficient to let forgiveness have a role in our national pride. It was truly a hard debate to vote on, and I wish you have made the voting on the 4-point system. I could have decided it was a tie, as Ragnar did, because I thought, until Con's unforced error, that you might carry the day; it was that close to me. I hate ties. Never the less, your debating is typically very well done, so, keep it up.
Zut, alors! I really messed up descriptions in my vote, confusing Pro and Con. I just hate it when an instigator plays games taking a Con position, even when I've done it. I've decided never again. See, I screw it up, myself. I've committed to always taking the Pro position as an instigator, and to word my resolutions from that perspective. So, lest anyone complain about my vote, ignore the descriptives relative to Pro and Con. I properly designated my vote as oromagi being the winner of this debate.
Thanks for taking the time to vote.
I would really appreciate if you voted. I am proud of this debate and would hate for it to end with just one vote, especially after all the interest it initially generated.
bump
i'll take a look at it. I will vote before the deadline.
VOTERS can read the argument in 3 formats:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1l696rwEbALex7jdyjGCMm07jaxnpsaC88yuN4UFV3xY/edit
or
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4494/post-links/187318
or
cut and paste below.
The internal link is by far superior as it preserves most of the formatting.
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4494-bsh1-memorial-profile-pick-of-the-week-no-23-leviathan-smiles?page=2&post_number=26
Where's oromagi's final argument?
Where's oromagi's final argument?
Thanks for your interest in this debate. Earlier, you mentioned you were preparing an in-depth RFD. Do you think we'll still get your vote on this debate?
No worries! I have seen your conduct, I am not easily influenced. I have to agree with you , you should have the right to atleast defend yourself. I don't know what observation he is talking about, I follow most of the debates here since I joined. I have not seen any instance that substanstiates his allegation.
"I don't hurl allegations, I observe"
And yet only allegations are offered, no observations.
Let's note that I can't reply directly to RationalMadman because he has me blocked in an effort to reinforce phony allegations made in other forums. One would expect that the act of blocking a fellow debater would at least restrain the blocker from constantly engaging the blockee but in the case of both DARTers who have me blocked, the degree of engagement and reference to me has substantially increased after the block, suggesting that the block is not employed for protection from engagement but as a tactical advantage is a campaign of increased engagement, a rhetorical sniper's nest. RM should either stop blocking me or stop having so much to say about me if we wishes to preserve any claim on fair-minded and good faith engagement, which principles ought to guide all debaters on this site.
I don't hurl allegations, I observe. You're lucky he cared about you, he rarely does.
RationalMadman's allegation is baseless, my first debate was with oromagi. I too failed to upload on time, he let me restart the debate and asks mods to delete the previous one. Dont hurl allegations RM.
R3 SOURCES:
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/deserve
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/unjustified
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/justified
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/justification
https://quotefancy.com/quote/1395090/Benjamin-Rush-Patriotism-is-as-much-a-virtue-as-justice-and-is-as-necessary-for-the
https://www.mountvernon.org/library/digitalhistory/quotes/article/citizens-by-birth-or-choice-of-a-common-country-that-country-has-a-right-to-concentrate-your-affections-the-name-of-american-which-belongs-to-you-in-your-national-capacity-must-always-exalt-the-just-pride-of-patriotism-more-than-any-appellation-derived-fr/
https://www.britannica.com/topic/patriotism-sociology
After a couple of major obstacles,PRO has completed R3 argument.
VOTERS can read the argument in 3 formats:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1l696rwEbALex7jdyjGCMm07jaxnpsaC88yuN4UFV3xY/edit
or
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4494/post-links/187318
or
cut and paste below.
The internal link is by far superior as it preserves most of the formatting.
PRO thanks Jeff_Goldblum again for his forebearance and I apologize for any inconvenience to VOTERS and Jeff caused by my error.
Thanks to all VOTERS for their kind consideration.
HOW to UNDERSTAND "JUSTIFIED" in this DEBATE
Let's recall that CON neglected to define JUSTIFIED in the description or in the opening round of the debate.
In fact, PRO's precise assertion has gotten increasingly fuzzy with each restatement of thesis.
CON's TOPIC="Americans Ought to Feel National Pride (PRO/CON)"
CON's RESOLUTION in DESCRIPTION: "Americans are justified in feeling national pride."
CON's R1: "I intend to defend the following statement: Considering the balance of US accomplishments, actions, and conditions throughout our past and in present day, Americans are unjustified in feeling national pride."
CON's R2: "I confronted Pro's attempt to reject my balanced approach to assessing whether we should be proud of the United States."
CON's R3: "I have contended that this debate is about whether we deserve to feel national pride."
If we settle on CON's latest standard as "DESERVE to feel", then we ought to note that CON never used the word DESERVE before R3.
If we use Oxford to define DESERVE as "do something or have or show qualities worthy of (reward or punishment)" we find that we're still on the hook ethically. How do we evaluate whether all AMERICANS are worthy of collective punishment if we don't know what that punishment is ?
CON would say that any speeding ticket is justified so long as you were speeding, regardless of the consequences
PRO argues that if the penalty for speeding is death, then the speeding ticket is unjustified (or undeserved to use CON's standard)
In essence, we have two competing standards for what "justified" means in this debate. Pro has argued "justified" refers to the consequences, whereas I have argued that it refers to the facts of the case
PRO defined UNJUSTIFIED as ""not shown to be right or reasonable" citing Oxford in R2
PRO argues that PRO defined the term first and has used the term with consistency, while CON keeps offering new frames on thesis. PRO's has argued that an absence of any patriotism would prove unreasonable and wrong for the US. CON's latest standard, DESERVE, is nevertheless subject to tests of ethics (right and wrong) and reason. Ethical considerations and a rational evaluation of consequences are just as much "facts of the case" as CON's list of accusations.
Wiktionary defines JUSTIFIED as "having a justification"
JUSTIFICATION is then defined as "a reason, explanation, or excuse which provides convincing, morally acceptable support for behavior or for a belief or occurrence.
" We ought to to favor my definition because it allows for a more straightforward understanding of this topic"
Set aside CON's lately conceived dichotomy of "deserve vs desire" and just go by the dictionary definition.
Is it right or reasonable for every citizen to participate in the state without any justified pride in that participation, especially when some citizens are entirely innocent of the failures delegitimizing pride?
Is a belief that all Americans must be punished for the crimes of some Americans reasonably excused by the magnitude of some past harm?
Let's recall that desirable is CON's word, PRO calls National Pride essential citing the self-harms that accompany failed self esteem.
"One can lack national pride and still arrive at the conclusion that a stronger, fairer, and more just democratic society should be pursued. One can observe the good and the bad in our country and resolve to increase the good and decrease the bad. They don't need to feel pride to do that."
one does not need to be proud of their nation to conclude that it is preferable that China and Russia be stymied in their attempts to spread authoritarianism
One does not need to be proud of their country to recognize that it is morally preferable for the state to continue functioning efficiently in service to the public good.
PRO calls this claim unfounded. Most other nations have a shared ethnic and geographic history that forms a nationalistic bond older than modern forms of government but the US is a land of immigrants drawn together by an experimental idealism. In our nation, Patriotism is the glue that holds us together.
The Founding Fathers thought so:
Benjamin Rush argued:
"Patriotism is as much a virtue as justice, and is as necessary for the support of societies as natural affection is for the support of families."
President George Washington reminded us:
"Citizens by birth or choice of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of American, which belongs to you, in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of Patriotism, more than any appellation derived from local discriminations."
Encyclopædia Britannica likewise calls Patriotism the glue of democracy:
"At the heart of .... patriotism lies the belief that to be stable, democratic societies require a strong sense of allegiance on the part of their citizens. Not only does the high degree of pluralism that characterizes contemporary societies potentially give rise to tensions and disagreements among citizens that may destabilize the polity, modern democratic states committed to a degree of equality rely on the willingness of citizens to make sacrifices for the common good. Hence, in the eyes of advocates....of patriotism, stable democratic societies require a strong sense of solidarity.
it's not as if pride in the nation is the only source of emotional motivation Americans can draw on. As Pro has pointed out, we can be proud of the minorities who persevered and fought for their rights. We can be proud of our liberties today. We can be proud of the fact that we have peaceful and fair elections. We can use these sources of pride to continue pursuing the public good. (we can also draw on sources of shame as motivators).
CON concedes the debate again. CON defined NATIONAL PRIDE as "satisfaction arising from the accomplishments, behavior, and condition of the USA in the past and present."
American civil rights, liberties, elections, etc fall well within the circle of US accomplishments. If we are justifiably proud of these accomplishments as CON asserts, then we are experiencing NATIONAL PRIDE by CON's definition and CON disproved.
What Does it Mean to Have National Pride?
"The first question - which is the question we're addressing in this debate - asks us to consider the country in its totality (this is the "balanced approach" my opponent has maligned me for. I did not shift goalposts. See my R1 conclusion). The second question only asks to consider parts of the nation."
Again, CON is redefining a term defined by CON at the outset of this debate. CONs multiple iterations on thesis did not ask us to consider "the country in its totality," which word does not appear in CON's argument until R2. CON asked us to consider AMERICANS. Americans are 330 million individual parts of America who are individually capable of feeling shame and pride in one another and ourselves simultaneously. There is no American monolith that can only feel one way about itself.
The resolution that "AMERICANS are JUSTIFIED in FEELING NATIONAL PRIDE" stands proven.
In R2, CON agreed with PRO that Americans are justified in feeling ambivalent, including feelings of pride.
In R3, CON agreed with PRO that Americans are justified in their pride of civil rights, free elections, and liberty.
VOTERS should accept CON's confirmation of PRO's position as well as PRO's argument and find for PRO in this debate.
Please VOTE PRO!
I guarantee you with a huge degree of certainty that in the reverse situation, Oromagi would laugh at you and show no mercy.
Removed by request:
Crocodile
3 hours ago
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Winner ✔ ✗ ✗ 1 point
Reason:
Was gonna make it a tie, but then the last round happened. Had a whole RFD written out.
This debate will probably be deleted but maybe it won't.
k reported my vote/
i'll come up with a extremely more detailed rfd
TO ALL VOTERS:
Please note that Oromagi has not dropped R3. He is posting his final argument in the comments. When you vote, please indicate that you've seen his R3.
there are no rules with how to do debate arguments. Oro can certainly place their arguments in a google doc
Just let me know when the new debate is finished, and I'll delete this one.
If there's any minor typos in earlier rounds, I do suggest you both agree to such corrections.
I'll do as you prefer. I'll start writing an argument now.
If necessary, I'm fine with deleting the debate and re-posting arguments in a new one. However, is it ok for Oromagi to post a link to an open Google Doc with his R3 argument? (assuming, of course, that he respects the 7.42k character limit) We could ask that all voters indicate they have seen Oro's R3 in the comments in their RFDs.
Regardless, do not yet delete this debate! I need to copy and paste my arguments into separate docs first.
Winner Selection debates... I always fail to notice that!
Well its my mistake and entirely Jeff's inconvenience so I will leave the decision up to Jeff. I would be willing to pre-concede conduct although this is winner selection debate.
The best option for this kind of thing is usually to start another debate with copy/pasted arguments, then delete the original.
In opting for that, you may have conduct pre-conceded for allowing it (otherwise all areas will be graded normally as if it were a new debate).
Another option is to do nothing, and let the voters decide on it as is. You could even opt for leaving this in place, but also doing a copy of this debate to see if a final round would change any vote outcomes.
Delete the debate, I mean
Could always have the mods delete it and then you guys just copy and paste the arguments.
That is correct. We cannot remove arguments.
Well- the only remedy I know is deletion/rebuild the debate using same args. I don't think the mods have the capacity to remove an argument or reset the debate to "debating" status. So, deference is a nice word for it but I'm really entirely at your mercy.
Nice of you to defer to me. Please, go ahead and remedy.
Its up to Jeff whether I have an opportunity to remedy or if the mistake stands.
yeah that my reads from the mafia game.
Last round go oof