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
- Number of rounds
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
Resolution: Americans are justified in feeling national pride.
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
- 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.