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

Implicit Propositions "When examining the parties involved in a situation like the one brought up by my opponent, he excluded nationality as a group that has authority to oblige a person to support another unconditionally on the grounds that nationality was only "shared characteristics". However, for many (youths in particular), members of the same nationality. .. Also, members of the same nationality have often grown up together. .. and therefore there is a bond within members of a nationality. Therefore, based on honor and these bonds, there is plenty of obligation in the field of nationality to unconditionally support those who share their heritage. " There are many things wrong with the above rebuttal. First off, it only vaguely asserts how an obligation COULD come from the nationality, it does not actually show that the obligation DOES come from a nationality, rather than self-regulation. Obligation- "a binding promise, contract, sense of duty, etc. " (1) The very nature of obligation means it must come from the individual themselves. Secondly, it is vague and unfounded. What is this "honor" based on? To what extent do these "bonds" extend? Thirdly, nowhere is it shown that such an obligation should be unconditional (this is merely asserted). Fourthly, even if it were unconditional, nowhere is it shown that an unconditional obligation would be rational. This last one leads to the fifth and fnal problem, this rebuttal entirely ignores the second, more important, part of my argument, namely, that an obligation for unconditional support is self-defeating (especially if it's based on the honour or well-being of the nationality). Given that the rebuttal does not address the contradictory nature of unconditional support, I will assume my opponent has conceeded the point. Toronto Maple Leafs "Firstly, my opponent argues that unconditional cheering based on nationality drops the quality of games in sports since this leads to a team no longer competing for support. However, my opponent clearly stated earlier in his argument that the competition and entertainment generated in sports is derived from the goal of winning the actual games, not winning the support of its fans. Therefore, I don't see how my opponent's argument makes sense. " Allow me to clarify the arguement for my opponent. If a team no longer feels compelled to compete for its fanbase, or the financial side no longer feels compelled to spend money on quality players, it will not play as well. The point of sports is to generate the highest quality competition possible. It is from this high quality competition that entertainment is derived. Therefore, teams are less likely to win games and fans are less likely to be entertained if they engage in unconditional support. If this is the case, unconditional support undermines both the quality of the game an the game watching experience and so is illogical for any fan to do. Nationality is a good reason to be a fan of a sports team Nationality may be a good reason to be a supporter of something, but that is not what is being debated. The problem is when nationality is the only thing considered and becomes unconditional support. Therefore, this argument is irrelevant as it does not show why nationality should be reason enough despite all other factors. "Therefore, based on those facts, it would make sense to make your decision of a sports team based on that. " To reitorate, yes, it might make sense to make your decision based on that that, but not solely on that. The Nuremburg Trials My opponent argues that there were many other reasons in addition to simple nationalityand included in the judges' defense. This may be true, but this only strengthens my previous argument. If, in addition to nationality, the judges followed orders for another reason and this still wasn't good enough to exonerate them, than it logically follows that it would be even more inexcusable if their only reason was shared nationality. Perhaps, using this example was an oversimplification, but it still demonstrates the point that nationality cannot be the only reason if one is to be said to have made a reasonable decision. In conclusion, my opponent has conceeded key points, and raised trivial objections, all the while failing to give one reason why it is reasonable to support something based on a common nationality despite all other factors. To summarize my own points: 1) Unconditional support of nationality can lead to the support of a cause that destroys that nationality. This is a problem because if one is to assume nationality is a good enough reason on its own to support something, one must assume it is more important than all other factors, and if one is to mount a cause to destroy a nationality one necessarily assumes that another factor is more important. This is contradictory and so cannot constitute a good reason. 2) Supporting a sports team unconditionally leads to a poorer quality of sport and so undermines the purpose of cheering in the first place. It also robs that person of their entertainment and so helps no one. It therefore canot constitute a good reason. 3) It can sometimes be criminal and is entirely inexcusable in the eyes of the courts to support something simply because of its nationality. If it were a reasonable thing to do it would be excused by the courts. / Therefore it is not reasonable and so cannot constitute a good reason. This has been an enjoyable debate and I thank my opponent and eagerly await his final comments and the verdict of the readers. (1) . http://dictionary.reference.com...