I'll start by answering Pro's questions before moving onto the debate proper.
Wasn't it white Americans who were beating the drum that he was unpatriotic for kneeling?
Fuck if I know. I don't pay attention to sportsball lol. Why is this relevant to a debate concerning a potential draft again?
Pro also says
you get chosen to serve but you refuse to go to war...is that considered "love for one's country?
This seems to make the assumption that the only way to love one's country is to be a soldier. I'm not sure why this is true.
Moreover, cross-apply the analysis I give from last round that you can still love something while disagreeing with it. Just like I can disagree with decisions my mom makes while still loving her, I can disagree with decisions the USFG makes while still loving the ol' US of A.
it was white Americans who crashed the US Selective Service website in trying to get their names removed if a draft was implemented.
A'ight. I'm gonna need a source for how specifically white Americans crashed the selective service website. None of the reports I can find on Google mention any racial identifiers as to who "crashed" the website, nor can I think of any way for them to get that kind of identifying information from internet traffic.
Pro then asks if the website crashing is considered patriotic or unpatriotic. The answer is neither of those is correct, but rather it's a server issue. Not sure how computer data can be patriotic or not.
Almost done with the Q&A. Pro asks
didn't President Trump dodge the draft on multiple occasions?
I mean, that sounds like something he'd do, lol. Not sure how this is responsive to my argument, though. I'm arguing that you can disagree with the decisions a country's government makes while still loving said country.
Ok, so when did the majority of Americans ever support a war?
I don't have the stats in front of me, nor do I care to go look for them, but I wager wars like WW2 were pretty heavily supported by the public.
But more importantly, doesn't this support my argument that you can disagree with a country's government's decisions (i.e. going to war) while still loving the country in question? I'm not sure how this shows that not supporting a draft is unpatriotic.
OK, but didn't more than 53% of white Americans get Trump elected
First, I'm not sure why the "white" qualifier is necessary here.
Second, how does the percent of white Trump voters relate to whether or not opposing a draft makes you necessarily unpatriotic?
Pro's last question is
OK, so was the Vietnam War unwarranted? What about the 2nd Gulf War in which No weapons of mass destructions were found?...Is that Warranted?
First, I don't see why I have to personally take a stance on these issues.
Second, I don't see how this is relevant to the debate. My argument is that the majority of Americans, regardless of ethnicity, don't want to go to war with Iran, so opposing a draft doesn't seem to contradict the tenants of patriotism. How is asking about the second gulf war relevant?
As a final statement before I move on to the rest of the debate, I'm not sure what my opponent is trying to prove through their arguments. They seem to have a history of really racially charged debate topics and arguments, so I suppose I shouldn't be too surprised by how this debate is turning out. But if they just want to rant and rave about how terrible white people are, there are a lot of better methods and mediums to use to do so than a debate.
So let's go back to the actual debate round at hand, shall we?
Extend O1. Patriotism is defined as "love of one’s country, identification with it, and special concern for its well-being and that of compatriots". Pro doesn't disagree with this definition, so the debate boils down to whether or not disagreeing with a military draft can meet these criteria, specifically the 'concern for its well-being and that of compatriots' clause. Pro hasn't actually made any arguments for how opposing a draft fails to meet this definition, but has just assumed it to be true. Insofar as they have been spending all of their time just attacking my arguments rather than trying to uphold their burden, there's no reason to believe that opposing a draft is necessarily unpatriotic.
Then, extend C1. The majority of Americans don't support a draft in relation to the US/Iran conflict, so supporting it makes you not a compatriot to the rest of the public. Moreover, the vast majority of American's believe that the US's handling of Iran has made things less safe, so opposing a draft meets the "concern for well-being" criteria in the definition. This never really gets attacked by Pro, so it's a clean extension across. I'm showing how opposing a draft is patriotic, which means that, by logical necessity, opposing a draft can't be unpatriotic.
Then, extend C2. To make the argument that 'not agreeing with a country's actions means that you must not love the country' makes an assumption that isn't logically warranted. I can disagree with someone's actions while still loving that person. Same thing applies to a country.
Pro makes one response to this:
the rest of my opponents arguments are excuses for being unpatriotic. He says that I'm making assumptions but it wasn't black people who crashed the US Selective Service website in regards to dodging a potential draft.
The bolding is my own emphasis.
First, the bolded part of the text shows just where my opponent is making the faulty assumption I'm accusing them of.
Second, this doesn't actually respond to my argument, but rather just declares that its wrong without any explanation as to why.
C2 shows that you can disagree with a country's actions, i.e. oppose a draft, while still loving the country, which meets the "love of one's country" criteria.