Nationality (on its own) is not a good reason to support something

1. Good Reasons To begin, I will address my opponent's rejection of "good reason". Firstly, the proposal that we should "each have our own definition on the matter" is an impossible one if a proper debate is to be had. If we each have our own definition, than it is possible that both sides may be right and the debate is undermined. Furthermore, the question of what makes a good reason is a debate on its own and so if there is not agreement to one single definition of good reason, the resolution of this debate will be distracted by the inner debate on "good reasons". It is necessary to have only one definition of "good reason". Secondly, I would like to defend the definition in my opening comments. "Good reason- rational i.e. being internally consistent and founded on facts" Internal consistency is a must for the proper measurement of anything. Imagine a reason without the bare minimum of internal consistency: I would like to paint myself because working hard will give me money. The reason "working hard will give me money" has nothing to do with the proposal "I would like to paint myself". If we allow the definition of a good reason to be without internal consistency than anything becomes possible and again both sides can be right. For the sake of making the resolution debateable, it is necessary to have internal consistency a part of the definition of "good reason". Regarding the necessity for the reason to be "founded on facts", I agree that fact is a difficult threshold to meet and so it is necessary to extend the definition to "founded on what are reasonably believed to be facts." This would make the new definition of good reason: Rational- internally consistent and founded on what are reasonably believed to be facts. Now it becomes necessary to defend the overall choice of rationality as criteria for a good reason. Rationality (or reasonability) can be found in foundational legal documents like The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Sec. 1 often called the reasonability clause) as needed justifications and limitations for actions (1). It can also be found in legal concepts ranging from due diligence (2) to criminal negligence (3). It is also essential to widespread ethical philosophies such as those of Kant, where it is the central concept (4). This definition of good reason, while it is not the only one, represents a commonly accepted societal, legal, philosophical, and moral view. Far from being arbitrary, this definition of reason enables a clear cut debate in which examples can be straight-forwardly analyzed and discourse can move forward without vagueness and confusion. This definition of good reason is necessary for the good of the debate and so it is on these terms that I ask my opponent to accept it unless there is a better definition that improves the quality of this debate. 2. Argument 1 and implicit propositions P1: That group shares my heritage _____________________________ C: I should support them For this to make sense there must be an implicit proposition that, regardless of all other factors, it is a good idea for the thinker to support the group and so there is a rational obligation to do so. P1: That group shares my heritage P2: Regardless of all other factors, I should support those who share my heritage __________________________________________________________________ C: I should support them The question becomes: where does such an obligation come from and what is it based on? Let us examine the parties involved. There is the individual, the group, and the nationality, if there is a competition there may also be other groups of other nationalities. Which group there has authority enough to oblige a person to support another unconditionally? It cannot be the group being supported for than they might oblige everyone to support them regardless of nationality. It cannot be the nationality, for it is only the fact of shared characteristics and very few would argue that all brunettes should support each other. Therefore, if this obligation comes from anywhere, it comes from the individual themselves. If this is the case, than nationality cannot be placed higher than all other reasons because the individual is necessarily placing themselves higher (since the authority to oblige oneself is also the authority not to oblige oneself). This obligation limits a person from examining other facts of the situation and so could only be considered a good reason, if shared nationality trumps all other factors in play. However, if that is the case than it logically follows that someone of the same nationality who is bent on destroying all people of that nationality and the history of the nationality itself should be supported. It does not matter if they have a "good reason" or not for destroying the nationality, it only matters that they are a part of it. Therefore, it becomes contradictory to support something because shared nationality is the highest of all obligations, if that something necessarily places itself higher than the existence and ongoing survival of that nationality. This example alone proves that the other factors must always be looked at in the case of supporting a group or cause. 2. The Toronto Maple Leafs If a person supports a team because it is from their hometown or country, and because of that unconditional support that team degrades in quality, one is forced to ask what is the role of the fan? Is the role of the fan to cheer on a team, or to cheer a team on to victory? Seeing as how, within the context of sports, the purpose of a team is to win and it is chiefly from this possibility and the competition it generates that entertainment is derived, it only stands to reason that the role of the fan is necessarily to cheer a team on to victory. Therefore, if the unconditional cheering leads to a team no longer competing for its support than the quality of the game drops and the purpose of the team and the entertainment for the fan is undermined. Again, it seems that if the shared nationality is really what matters than its "honour" should matter by extension. The nationality itself is undermined if it is propounded unconditionally in the same way that the dodo never having had competition for its food became extinct soon after a predator (humans) came along (5). 3. The Nuremburg Trials After World War II, many high ranking German officials were put on trial. The highest profile cases were dealt with at the "Nuremburg Trials (6). Case no.3 dealt with the judges of Germany (6). In it, the argument was made that the role of the judge is to execute, not question, the laws of their state (6). It is here that readers may see the most serious implications for believing that nationality is a good enough reason to support something. These judges followed the laws of Germany above all other moral, religious, personal laws simply because they were the laws of Germany and therefore technically legally binding. It was found in the opinion of the court that this defence was not adequate for the majority of the defendants (10/16 convicted) (6). This finding is an important one to look to in this debate and supports pro. It has been shown that not only is it logically impossible, but it is sometimes detrimental and even dangerous to support a group or cause simply for its nationality. It is always necessary to look at the other factors in the situation, before support can reasonably be given. I eagerly await my opponent's rebuttal. (1) http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca... (2) http://www.ccohs.ca... (3) http://www.thefreedictionary.com... (4) http://en.wikipedia.org... see "Kant's Argument Autonomy and Freedom" (5) http://www.amnh.org... (6) http://law2.umkc.edu...