Instigator / Con
1
1634
rating
13
debates
80.77%
won
Topic
#2154

Americans Ought to Feel National Pride (7.42k Characters)

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Winner
1
2

After 2 votes and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...

oromagi
Parameters
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
Contender / Pro
2
1922
rating
117
debates
97.44%
won
Description

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.

-->
@fauxlaw

No problem at all friend

-->
@MisterChris

I accept your argument and I will follow it. Thank you.

-->
@fauxlaw

**************************************************
>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.

-->
@blamonkey
@MisterChris

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!

-->
@Crocodile

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.

-->
@Username

It's quite alright. Do what makes you comfortable.

-->
@Jeff_Goldblum

I could give it a shot ig but i'd be very unlikely to vote.

-->
@Jeff_Goldblum

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 :(

-->
@Jeff_Goldblum

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.

-->
@fauxlaw

Thanks for taking the time to vote.

-->
@David
@Barney
@Username
@PressF4Respect

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

-->
@oromagi
@Jeff_Goldblum

i'll take a look at it. I will vote before the deadline.

-->
@Crocodile

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.

-->
@Crocodile

https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4494-bsh1-memorial-profile-pick-of-the-week-no-23-leviathan-smiles?page=2&post_number=26

-->
@Jeff_Goldblum

Where's oromagi's final argument?

-->
@Jeff_Goldblum

Where's oromagi's final argument?

-->
@Crocodile

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?

-->
@oromagi

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.

-->
@shadow_712

I don't hurl allegations, I observe. You're lucky he cared about you, he rarely does.

-->
@RationalMadman
@Jeff_Goldblum

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.

-->
@Jeff_Goldblum

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

-->
@David
@Barney
@Jeff_Goldblum

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!

-->
@Jeff_Goldblum

I guarantee you with a huge degree of certainty that in the reverse situation, Oromagi would laugh at you and show no mercy.

-->
@Crocodile

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.

-->
@Jeff_Goldblum

k reported my vote/

i'll come up with a extremely more detailed rfd

-->
@David
@Barney
@Username
@PressF4Respect
@Crocodile

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.

-->
@oromagi
@Jeff_Goldblum

there are no rules with how to do debate arguments. Oro can certainly place their arguments in a google doc

-->
@oromagi
@Jeff_Goldblum

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.

-->
@David
@Barney
@Jeff_Goldblum

I'll do as you prefer. I'll start writing an argument now.

-->
@David
@Barney
@oromagi

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.

-->
@oromagi

Winner Selection debates... I always fail to notice that!

-->
@David
@Barney
@Jeff_Goldblum

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.

-->
@oromagi
@Jeff_Goldblum

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

-->
@oromagi
@Jeff_Goldblum

Could always have the mods delete it and then you guys just copy and paste the arguments.

-->
@Barney
@oromagi
@Jeff_Goldblum

That is correct. We cannot remove arguments.

-->
@David
@Barney
@Jeff_Goldblum

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.

-->
@oromagi

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