Hot button issue

First things first, I read the comments and I realized that I have not shown why it should be taught in schools. The fact is, if we don't teach it in schools, there is no guarantee that they will learn patriotism. Teaching it in schools is the most efficient way to spread the message. Next, I will point out that my opponent has conceded his John example. He claims that it unimportant to his case, but what he fails to realize is that I made essential points in my refutation of the example. These include "Really now, first, I will infer that he wants change for the better (although why is he supporting Obama? Anyways...). This means he wants good for his country. MW defines love as "affection based on benevolence" benevolence, the key term means "disposition to do good." Because John wants good for his country, he is loving his country, that's one part of patriotism." There I show that anyone who wants good for our country is a patriot. Thus, a major point, that has been CONCEDED. Another point I made was "John is devoted to his country, as seen through desire for good, and inferred action (voting) to try and bring about that good. In short, he is loving and devoting himself to his country, in his own little way. John here is actually a patriot, not a terrorist. If you think John is good, than I win." Two points in here. First, I show that people who do the simple act of voting help our country, and are patriotic in doing so. Unless my opponent would like to contend that voting is bad, he has CONCEDED another essential point. The second point in that quote is that if John is seen as good, then I win. In CONCEDING the John example, he shows that he views John as good, and also by CONCEDING the John example he CONCEDES that if he thinks John is good, I WIN. Thus, I WIN. Now, moving on to his other points. "This is based upon your earlier quote by Aristotle. And just because he said it, it's correct?" He supports it logically, in the basic way I support patriotism. This means voting, and he supports it by saying that if we don't vote, we aren't helpful to our nation. "The rest of his argument stems from the line, 'if no one cares about their country...' and like I said earlier you can care about your country without being patriotic. You can bet on the Superbowl; even if you don't love or devote yourself to it, you [most likely] care about the outcome." This is different. The way you care about the Superbowl in this case is simply having an interest in knowing about the outcome, or having patriotism towards a favorite team. For example, I cared about the Superbowl between the Steelers and the Seahawks because I am a patriot for the Ravens, and I want the Steelers to fail as they are my enemies. So, in fact, it could be due to patriotism, or it could be curiosity in the outcome. Just because I go to cnn.com to find out about the Georgian war does not mean I care at all about Georgia. It only means I am interested in it. "I negate the resolution on the basis that these children will already be exposed to patriotism. They will have questions about presidents whenever they are mentioned, and they will ask their parents about voting. They will also learn about the history of their nation in school. They will learn what the U.S. stands for, and will agree with it. Patriotism does not need to be taught to children in school, because they will eventually stumble upon it themselves." My answer to this is that not teaching patriotism would mean not answering any of the questions that my opponent mentioned, and not teaching children what the US stands for. Basically my opponent is saying we shouldn't be doing something because we are already doing it. This is a CONTRADICTION. Why I WIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1. My opponent CONCEDED two essential points. 2. My opponent CONCEDED the debate. 3. My opponent CONTRADICTED himself. 4. My opponent's points were based on misinterpretations of my argument. 5. I have REFUTED all of my opponent's arguments.