Resolved: Patriotism should be taught to children in school.

On the contrary. PRO did not just drop his arguments. He changed his position entirely. In formal debate, this is referred to "changing your advocacy" RE:"There is nothing at all wrong with dropping arguments. And adding arguments (provided it is not the final round) is generally acceptable as well. And my "objective," I would argue, is still the same: it is to demonstrate that the resolution is true – that is all. " In formal debate, Pro's method is referred to as "shifting advocacy. To clarify to all of you, the term "SHIFTING ADVOCACY" is used in formal debate, and it's basically what it sounds: the affirmative position, or the 'instigator' on this site, is changing their position. Now, this is abusive because the job of the opposing team, the negative position, or the 'contender' on this site, has to prove the instigator wrong. However, the contender can't do his/her job at all if the instigator is just going to continually change their case. Him making a COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY NEW argument in R2 is abusive because it basically shows that he's willing to basically change to another position - another interpretation of the resolution - anytime I take out one of his points. RE: " This still fits into where I'm going with my argument. That is, I am arguing that patriotism should be taught. And to be "accepted" is still not persuading any students. If the word were "acceptable," then yes, persuasion would be in play. But it is only ‘accepted. " And if something is "accepted," it is only taken in account. That is how it is distinguishable from "acceptable. "" False. Let us take a gander at oxford's definition: . http://www.askoxford.com... "Accepted: ". .. believe or receive as valid or correct. " When one is persuaded in favor of something, they are being shifted to believing or receiving an idea as valid or correct. RE: "Either way, however, the definition provided by my opponent is lower on the list (#4) than the definition I found (#1), in accordance with Merriam-Webster. " Irrelevant. There is nothing to suggest that definitions are to be more accepted depending on there numerical order. My opponent has provided no evidence in favor of this notion, thus you are to dismiss it and accept my allegation concerning the cherry picking. :D RE: "Nothing in the resolution suggests which specific definition we use, and thus, it is only right that we use the one highest up on the list of definitions (i. e. one with the most authority). " The fact of the matter is that it is up to us to define the resolution. When using dictionary to do the defining, you must establish why other definitions of a term in question are not to be taken into consideration if your goal is to focus on merely one of the definitions. If this is not accomplished, it is unreasonable for one to simply pick a definition and say that this definition shall be the only definition which is taken into consideration. PRO has given us no reason to believe that the other definition are irrelevant thus his claim is not warranted. RE: "I see nothing to suggest that "to know" would necessarily mean or lead to being "coerced into arriving at a conclusion. Again, referring to Merriam-Webster, the first definition: 1 a (1): to perceive directly : have direct cognition of (2): to have understanding of (3): to recognize the nature of : discern b (1): to recognize as being the same as something previously known (2): to be acquainted or familiar with (3): to have experience of [. ]" PRO yet again cherry picks the definition in attempt to get an edge. Let us look at the rest of the definition: " to be aware of the truth or factuality of : be convinced or certain of b: to have a practical understanding of " This isn't mere understanding which we're embracing, but a matter of factuality and being convinced and/or certain. This is where being forced to arrive at some conclusion comes from. What I'm insisting is teaching that does not allow students to be convinced or MADE certain of ideas, but rather . . . what I am upholding is that students simply be aware of the ideas concerning patriotism and arrive at their own conclusions. If they do reach some ideas which they wish to consider factual, let them do it by themselves rather than force it upon students. Ergo, I negate the resolution as it stands: "Resolved: Patriotism should be taught to children in school. " Vote CON I'll leave it at that since time constraints are yet again upon me. Cheers to my opponent and the judges . . . as well as this pure fruitless semantic debate. :D Goodnight.