Resolved: Patriotism should be taught to children in school.

RE: CONTENTION 1: Freedom to establish your own opinion. One thing I find interesting about this contention as well as CON's case entirely is that it makes the common assumption (which is actually the result of most of the controversy on this issue) that patriotism cannot be taught without coercing students to embrace it. This is evident in PRO claiming "no matter what, we will teach devotion to the country." As pointed out in my first contention, this is not necessarily the case, provided patriotism is restricted to exemplary teaching (merely teaching about the revolutionary war would be an example of this). What I'm arguing is that patriotism is taught in a way to where students can see it for what it is and choose whether or not to embrace it. What I'm arguing is that it be restricted to a knowledge basis in the schools (or, if not on a knowledge/exemplary level, allow such teaching be optional) . The point I'm getting at is that one can most certainly have the freedom to establish their own opinion on "patriotism" while learning about patriotism just as one can most certainly establish their own opinion on sex when being taught Sex ED (which doesn't teach kids to go out and have sex, but rather focuses on making them informed enough to reach conclusions in regards to having sex or not). Of course, my opponent is more than free to tell us why "no matter what, we will teach devotion to the country" assuming he is using "teach" in the context of "coercion." If he doesn't do this, I see no reason for you to even consider taking his contention seriously. RE: CONTENTION 2: Teach students basic politics and let them decide. Again, both my opponent and I have a common interest. I agree that patriotism is blind, which is exactly why it shouldn't be forced. At the same time however, I do not condone ignorance of the concept or the history behind it, thus implore teaching it. In any case, as I've pointed out, my position not only lets students decide but gives them ample knowledge and understanding of their decisions. RE: CONTENTION 3: We should not force respect for anything. Indeed, the pledge of allegiance is an example of coercion. I do not uphold coercion and am in absolute agreement with my opponent here. Unfortunately, I've established that teaching does not equate to coercion and have restricted the teaching of patriotism down to a level of knowledge (or for an alternative, merely an option). Point being: This argument in no way diminishes my position and is therefore irrelevant. RE: CONTENTION 4: Waste of money and NCLB focus. All my opponent states here is that it is a given. Dismiss this contention without hesitation if he has no intention of providing a premise for it. RE: CONTENTION 5: Dictatorship countries could force their people to participate in unjust actions. Precisely. Which is why my case should be upheld as students are merely being given knowledge (and knowing about dictatorship countries who take patriotism too far would be a great help in allowing a student to make a decision on what to think of the concept) and are taking up the option to be patriotic should they feel inclined to do so. As I've insisted in my initial round, I'm very much concerned with liberty (especially in regards to choice), hence the nature of my solution. BACK TO MY CASE: RE REBUTTALS ON: CONTENTION #1: Knowledge is beneficial As you can see, my opponent basically reiterated the gist of my first contention. He then points back to his second contention as a reference of what is better, but as we've already established, his second contention is a failure on the basis that it erroneously concludes that teaching equates to coercion as well as the fact that it promotes ignorance. RE REBUTTALS ON: CONTENTION #2: Patriotic classes could easily be optional PRO claims that patriotism should not be taught even optionally (which is strange considering that his whole case hinges on the flawed notion that it is bad because it supposedly forces people to act against their will), but that it should be developed honestly and naturally. First, I'd like PRO to provide a premise for this conclusion as I don't believe I see one. Second, I'd like to refer back to my sex ed example. Let us remember that the purpose of sexual education is to inform students about sex so that they may be able to make intelligent decisions in regards to it (most precisely, when to do it as well as how to insure protection). This is simply because when individuals go about learning "naturally", they typically end up making mistakes that result in STDS or unwanted pregnancies. Here, we should worry about a similar threat. My opponent makes a good point about the evils that have resulted in patriotism taken too far and enabling students to be informed about the matter (most importantly, it's history) should enable them to make better decisions and most certainly not involve themselves in unfavorable activities (such as physically/mentally persecuting those who aren't patriotic or starting "patriotic" groups who severe the purpose of expunging those who are deemed a "threat to the country." Lastly, PRO repeats himself in insisting that dictatorship countries could force their citizens to follow thier laws no matter what, but if I recall correctly, this argument was based on the flawed premise that teaching is the equivalent to coercing. Here (where I flat out insist that patriotic classes/activities be made optional), that premise cannot possibly apply. ====================== RE: CON's CROSS-EXAMINATION: Why is Patriotism inherently good? ======================== In response, I'd say that this question assumes that I am of the position that patriotism is inherently good. On the contrary, I have no opinion on whether or not it is good as this is absolutely irrelevant. However, I do uphold the position that being informed about it is inherently good as I've shown in the debate. To pacify my opponent: If one could say that devoted love, support and defense of one's country would be considered the act of being against anything that propagates "evil" into said country, then yes, I'd say that it is why it is inherently good. To expound on this in accordance to further questioning, I'd say that supporting the evils propagated by Adolf Hitler as well as the Muslim countries is not truly being patriotic as each instances were acts of the country being decayed by evil. As for the good which comes about from having classes teaching on patriotism, I've covered this both in my first contention as well as recently in my second contention. ================= My Cross-Examination ================ Question #1: Would you expound on the following: "Since this resolution imposes what should happen, I urge that we create a neutral playing field for the American's and their view upon society, and to their country in general." Why does "should" trigger this neutral playing field and such? Furthermore, is this making us uphold an unrealistic paradigm of the US? How so? And why is this restricted to America? Question #2: Since you asked me why patriotism was good, I'd like to know if you think it is good, neutral or evil. I'd also like you to expound on your answer. And believe it or not, that's all the questioning I see the need to have. Till next round. :D