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

Rebuttal 1 – Implicit Propositions My opponent argues that because I said that an obligation COULD come from nationality and not how it DOES come from nationality, my rebuttal is wrong. May I remind my opponent and all other readers that there are always multiple reasons someone could do something for ANYTHING in the world. There is NEVER a single reason that everybody has to do something. However, my argument supports my standpoint of con against the original resolution: “Nationality (on its own) is not a good reason to support something”. My opponent has not rebutted against (and I can therefore conclude he has accepted) the fact that my argument supports the con standpoint that nationality (on its own) IS a good reason to support something. My opponent also brings up the definition of obligation – the main part of that definition being “sense of duty”. Of course the obligation comes from the individual – it always is. An individual is NEVER restricted to not doing something. However, the “sense of duty” in my opponent’s definition is nationality, as I have argued. In my argument, I have also made it very clear that youths (and many others) have unconditional obligations based on heritage. These kinds of people have grown up with bonds and honor based on nationality that they would die for. They do anything and everything for members of their own nationality. These unconditional obligations are also completely rational; you can’t help the way you are raised, and the way you are raised determines your attitude and look on things. Therefore, the ONLY choice they have due to the way they were raised is to unconditionally support those of their heritage, making their choices rational. As far as my opponent’s argument that unconditional support for a nationality is self-defeating goes, my opponent still fails to see that the resolution that he made means that nationality alone CAN be a good reason to support something, but it does not mean that nationality ALWAYS has to be the reason to support something. Therefore, my opponent’s argument is invalid. Rebuttal 2 – Toronto Maple Leafs My opponent again argues that the main competition or entertainment that is generated within a sports franchise is the competition for a team’s fanbase. However, plenty of little league teams (who probably would have any fans if it weren’t for the children’s parents) certainly don’t have to compete for a fanbase, yet they function well. If a team has a quality, sturdy, unconditional fanbase, that doesn’t mean the team will stop paying for the best players it can. After all the team can still sell merchandise, etc. to those loyal fans. This being, the highest competition that fuels a healthy sports franchise is generated from the actual playing of the game, not the competition for a team’s fans. Therefore, it is completely logical for a fan to unconditionally support a team based on nationality, as per my “Nationality is a good reason to support a sports team” argument. Re-Rebuttal 3 – Nationality is a good reason to be a fan of a sports team My opponent again forgets the original resolution: Nationality (on its own) is not a good reason to support something”. In my opponent’s opening statement of this rebuttal, he says, “Nationality may be a good reason to be a supporter of something…” My opponent goes on to say that what is being debated is unconditional support, in contradiction to the original resolution. As I have stated before, there are always multiple reasons to do ANYTHING, therefore, my opponent’s rebuttal is irrelevant and my argument stands true. Rebuttal 4 – The Nuremberg Trials Once again, there is ALWAYS another reason that can be named for doing anything, because everyone’s motives are different. Therefore, there will always be some other factors, like my opponent mentioned, but that is the simple basics of life. Any other reasons that the German judges had during the Nuremberg Trials all tied into the basic category of nationality – their loyalties to Nazi Germany, as I have argued, would obviously fall under nationality. Therefore, nationality was the only main reason for their actions. Conclusion Overall, I have successfully rebutted all of my opponent’s arguments as well as making sound arguments myself. My opponent has also failed to successfully rebut any of my statements. Therefore, I urge a con vote.