Resolved: If Forced To Choose, people ought to priotorize their national identity over their common

In this round, I shall rebut Pro's case ===Defense of Case=== Pro claims that Nationalism is identical to national identity. He defines nationalism as "desire by a large group of people (such as people who share the same culture, history, language, etc.) to form a separate and independent nation of their own [1]." He also defines nationalism as "A sense of a nation as a cohesive whole, as represented by distinctive traditions, culture, and language: [3]" There is a difference between having a sense of nationhood with other people and having the desire to create a nation as a sovereign political entity. One may identify as a member of a nation, and but may not necessarily advocate for the creation of a sovereign nation state, thus my statement that Nationalism isn't the same as a national identity remains true, and Pro has failed in negating this point. R1: Statelessness Pro makes the contention that being stateless makes having a national identity impossible, and thus the argument is a topical. This is not true, someone has the ability to identify with any nation, regardless of citizenship status, although it is very difficult for these people to have a national identity, it is not impossible, thus it is not a topical. My primary argument is that people do not have an obligation to prioritize their national identity over their common humanity, but rather they should choose for themselves which is better for them in a given situation. R2: Dual Citizenship Pro once again makes the accusation that an argument of mine is a topical, and once again, he is false. If one has a sense belonging to two nation states, for example the United States and Italy, then their national identity is both American and Italian, and one has the ability to choose two national identities, or merge them into one as Italian-American. Identity is not necessarily singular, a single person has the ability to have multiple identifies, including my maternal grandmother who identifies as Mexican-American. She was born and raised in Mexico and has Mexican customs and identifies with Mexico legally but she lived in the United States for most of her adult life, is an American citizen, and has integrated into American society. Thus, having more than one national identity is possible as long as someone relates to a nation. R3: Refugees Pro states "Nations may be temporary, but so are their politics. Sure there are nations that are failed states and oppressive. NAZI Germany may have been an offensive and a place where Jews weren't proud to say they were German nor the Japanese-Americans in the internment camps. Yet, the geopolitics change and Germany is more tollerant and Japanese are treated a great deal of better. This may be a short term thing, but we have to see that in the long term, people are still associated with their nation." This argument is weak. The temporariness of a nation and politics is dangerous, because a once stable nation like Syria or Iraq can descend into chaos and Civil War, forcing people to leave their homes in order to preserve the lives of themselves and their families. Pro brings up Nazi Germany as being offensive. It was far worse from being offensive, it killed 6 million Jews in the Holocaust, ( https://www.ushmm.org... ) and 6 million other people deemed as "undermensch" (https://en.wikipedia.org...) In that present moment, why did these people have an obligation to prioritize their national identity of the nation that violated their human rights by systematically killing them? This makes no sense. In regards to Japanese Interment camps, most of the Japanese who were sent to interment camps during WWII were American citizens by jus soli as they were born in the United States, which is granted in the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution. In this case, why did the Japanese American citzens have an obligation to prioritize their national identity when their government violated their human rights guaranteed to all citizens in the United States Constitution? Once again, this makes no sense and in both cases Pro does not give proof as to why people ought to priotorize their national identity over their common humanity in all these cases. Perhaps now people are treated better, but that did not matter when they were being opressed and killed by their own nation, and this still happens in the present day. Also, it is hard to be associated long term with their nation when their nation kills them and their families. Conclusion: Pro's BoP is to prove that people have an obligation to prioritize their national identity over their common humanity, and he has failed to prove this resolution. My BoP as Con is to negate this resolution, and so far I have negated the resolution, thus I have fulfilled my BoP and won the debate.