Patriotism, in moderation, should be taught in public schools.

I LOVE AMERICA. Just so y'all know, I am not a terrorist, I do not hate america, but I DO HATE some of our politician friends up at Washington, and I DO hate many of the things that have come to pass by our Congress and have not and will not or yet not been fixed by the Supreme Court. I think our country was founded on the correct principles: to let man be free and independent. To let man choose who he wants to marry, what he wants to do, believe what he wants to believe. (oh and I meant woman too for every instance i said man up there :P) That being said, I disagree with many of the things implemented by our government today. I agree with the PRO, but ONLY to the extent that Patriotism is good. I negate, that Patriotism, in moderation, should be taught in public schools. The PRO has the burden to give good reasons to teach patriotism, in moderation, in public schools, while all I have to do is prove him wrong. If I do just that or he fails to prove his point, you automatically vote CON. With that said. R1--- "Patriotism, as defined by the Merriam Webster online dictionary, is a love or devotion for one's country or homeland." While Lennox provides us a definition of Patriotism for this debate, he never gives a distinct plan, or even a vague plan, of what MODERATED Patriotism is. If he doesn't touch on this next round, you already have another reason to default CON, because I can't attack his case if I don't know what it is. Otherwise, I'll accept that definition. R2--- "Then is nothing wrong with teaching our youth to love themselves, to love thier country. I am not saying that America is perfect, nor that our government upholds everything it should." I vehemently disagree. As patriotism is faith, and faith is basically a religion without necessarily having a god, then teaching patriotism can be likened to destroying "freedom of religion" of the First Amendment and can also be likened to propaganda. Propaganda has pretty freakin' bad consequences.... but since he said "in moderation" and has yet to explain that, I'll leave the rest of this arg to the next round. Regardless, this is against the general principles of our country. 'Freedom and Independence to All Mankind' was what this country was founded upon, and although we have screwed up in many cases as Lennox agrees, I don't think we should screw it up more by spreading patriotism. What this country ought to do INSTEAD is to GIVE PEOPLE A REASON to be patriotic, instead of instilling in its citizens a blind faith. If people up at the White House stopped being immature, maybe more of Americans would be patriotic. R3--- "Even if we are unpatriotic persons we developed from our experiences in good old America." I don't think growing up in the piece of Earth called America means that America deserves our love. I don't believe that because I was born to a certain set of parents that they deserve my utmost top-priority respect. I think that they have to earn it. In the case of both my parents and America, they have, but this reason you're giving does not warrant the claim that we should spread patriotism in moderation to public schools. R4--- "If we give seed to a society that lacks patriotism then what will become of our land of Liberty? It'll become a place where people didn't care about common good of the state and thus ultimately not caring about themselves.' Ahahaha. If you haven't noticed, most people DON'T care about the common good of the state and ALL THEY DO is care about themselves. Case in point, Disney makes its giant plushie Tiggers in sweatshops where children work. Disney doesn't care for our nation, doesn't care for wherever they set up that sweatshop, just cares for profit. But that's a debate for a different day. For his first point in those lines, I don't think that just because there's no seed, then that leads to everyone being unpatriotic. (I'm your empirical example if you need one.) Unlike gardening, a seed doesn't need to be planted by some higher authority for ideas and values such as patriotism to grow. We're not dirt, we're humans; we can come to our own conclusions through experiences. As for Lennox's second point, he doesn't give a reason how not caring for the good of the state will lead to citizens not caring about themselves. I'd argue the exact opposite: If citizens stop caring about the general good, then all they do will care about themselves. This has already happened, as corporations fund both sides of wars. I won't even go into the real detailed stuff: Fanta was Nazi Coca-Cola. (GG much?) But even not taking that into consideration, that argument he made has no impact. A negative does not imply a positive; just because they won't care if theres no seed doesn't mean they will care if there is a seed. In short, he has not proved to you at all why Patriotism, in moderation, should be taught in public schools. Best he has done thus far is prove that Patriotism is good. Which isn't the topic. MY ARGUMENT - Most of it has been used in responding to his argument already, but I'll summarize again here: I believe that although patriotism is good and leads to many good results, there's no reason to suddenly start teaching it to children and everything. If this country deserves our love, then it ought to have to earn it. Blind faith doesn't necessarily produce beneficial results (as we can see with the Crusades), while a conscious population that looks into and criticizes or supports its country, does. This sort of love for your country can NOT be installed into you like a program into some computer; it needs to be earned. The only thing you can instill is blind faith. Also, teaching patriotism is against what this country is about. As I've repeatedly said throughout this round, America was founded on giving people free choice and independence, and the government handing us our opinion isn't what it ought to do, traditionally or morally. If it wants its peoples respect, it will have to earn it.